Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Jürges, Hendrik / Ludwig, Sandra

Ed. by Auriol , Emmanuelle / Brunner, Johann / Fleck, Robert / Mendola, Mariapia / Requate, Till / Zulehner, Christine / Schirle, Tammy


IMPACT FACTOR 2015: 0.250
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.825

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.501
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.418
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.455

Online
ISSN
1935-1682
See all formats and pricing

 


Select Volume and Issue
Loading journal volume and issue information...

Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments

John A. List1 / Paramita Sinha2 / Michael H. Taylor3

1University of Chicago,

2University of Maryland, College Park,

3University of Maryland, College Park,

Citation Information: Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy. Volume 5, Issue 2, ISSN (Online) 1538-0637, DOI: 10.2202/1538-0637.1132, January 2006

Publication History

Published Online:
2006-01-13

Abstract

Critics of stated preference methods argue that hypothetical bias precludes survey techniques from providing reliable economic values for non-market goods and services, rendering estimation of the total economic benefits of public programs fruitless. This paper explores a relatively new methodology to obtain the total value of non-market goods and services—choice experiments—which conveniently provide information on the purchase decision as well as the characteristic value vector. The empirical work revolves around examining behavior in two very different field settings. In the first field study, we explore hypothetical bias in the purchase decision by eliciting contributions for a threshold public good in an actual capital campaign. To extend the analysis a level deeper, in a second field experiment we examine both the purchase decision and the marginal value vector via inspection of consumption decisions in an actual marketplace. In support of the new valuation design, both field experiments provide some evidence that hypothetical choice experiments combined with “cheap talk” can yield credible estimates of the purchase decision. Furthermore, we find no evidence of hypothetical bias when estimating marginal attribute values. Yet, we do find that the “cheap talk” component might induce internal inconsistency of subjects’ preferences in the choice experiment.

Keywords: field experiments; valuing nonmarketed goods

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[2]
Darla Hatton MacDonald, John M. Rose, Haidee J. Lease, and David N. Cox
Food Quality and Preference, 2015
[3]
John A. List and Charles F. Mason
Journal of Econometrics, 2011, Volume 162, Number 1, Page 114
[5]
Roger H. von Haefen and Daniel J. Phaneuf
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2008, Volume 56, Number 1, Page 19
[6]
Darla Hatton MacDonald, Mark D. Morrison, John M. Rose, and Kevin J. Boyle
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2011, Volume 55, Number 3, Page 374

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.