Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

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 / Schirle, Tammy / de Vries, Frans / Zulehner, Christine

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.252
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.755

CiteScore 2016: 0.48

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.330
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.526

Online
ISSN
1935-1682
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 5, Issue 2 (Jan 2006)

Issues

Volume 6 (2006)

Volume 4 (2004)

Volume 2 (2002)

Volume 1 (2001)

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

John A. List / Paramita Sinha / Michael H. Taylor
Published Online: 2006-01-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1132

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

About the article

Published Online: 2006-01-13


Citation Information: Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, ISSN (Online) 1538-0637, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1132.

Export Citation

©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

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.

[1]
Ekin Birol, Nick Hanley, Phoebe Koundouri, and Yiannis Kountouris
Water Resources Research, 2009, Volume 45, Number 11
[2]
Christian Pfarr, Andreas Schmid, and Morten Raun Mørkbak
Review of Income and Wealth, 2016
[4]
Darla Hatton MacDonald, John M. Rose, Haidee J. Lease, and David N. Cox
Food Quality and Preference, 2016, Volume 48, Page 283
[5]
John A. List and Charles F. Mason
Journal of Econometrics, 2011, Volume 162, Number 1, Page 114
[7]
Roger H. von Haefen and Daniel J. Phaneuf
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2008, Volume 56, Number 1, Page 19
[8]
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.
Log in