Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Examining the perceptions and effects of survey consequentiality across population subgroups

  • O. Ashton Morgan (a1), William L. Huth (a2) and Paul Hindsley (a3)
Abstract

Recent research examining voting behavior in contingent valuation referenda informs on how consequential survey respondents behave and its impact on willingness-to-pay (WTP) values. This research attempts to examine whether this behavior holds across population subgroups. We consider resident and nonresident users of artificial reefs and find improved construct validity for our resident models over nonresident models. Specifically, resident behavior is in line with a priori expectations with consequential residents more likely to vote in favor of a policy for additional reef funding – a result that is consistent with the “protest no” literature. Consequently, consequential resident voters exhibit a greater WTP than inconsequential voters. Nonresident behavior differs, however. For this subgroup, consequentiality does not influence voting behavior and WTP values do not differ by consequentiality. Overall, more work is required to appropriately identify WTP values for nonresident populations, particularly from a benefit-cost perspective, where appropriately identifying subgroup WTP values are a critical component of measuring the net present value of a given policy.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Examining the perceptions and effects of survey consequentiality across population subgroups
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Examining the perceptions and effects of survey consequentiality across population subgroups
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Examining the perceptions and effects of survey consequentiality across population subgroups
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*e-mail: morganoa@appstate.edu
References
Hide All
Bell, Frederick W., Bonn, Mark A. & Leeworthy, Vernon R.(1998). Economic Impact and Importance of Artificial Reefs in Northwest Florida. Office of Fisheries Management and Assistance Service, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Carson, Richard T., Flores, Nicholas E., Martin, Kerry M. & Wright, Jennifer L. (1996). Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods. Land Economics, 72(1), 8099.
Carson, Richard T., Flores, Nicholas E. & Meade, Norman F. (2001). Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173210.
Carson, Richard T. & Groves, Theodore (2007). Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181210.
Carson, Richard T., Groves, Theodore & List, John A. (2014). Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1(1/2), 171207.
Duffield, John W., Neher, Christopher J. & Brown, Thomas C. (1992). Recreation Benefits of Instream Flow: Application to Montana’s Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers. Water Resources Research, 28(9), 21692181.
Groothuis, Peter A. & Whitehead, John C. (2009). The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation. Agricultural & Resource Economics Review, 38(2), 271280.
Groothuis, Peter A., Mohr, Tanga M., Whitehead, John C. & Cockerill, Kristin M. (2017). Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount. Land Economics, 93(2), 258268.
Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, Elisabeth E. (2008). Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods. In Plott, C. & Smith, V. L. (Eds.), Handbook of Results in Experimental Economics. New York: Elsevier Science.
Hausman, Jerry (2012). Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 4356.
Hess, Ronald W., Rushworth, Denis, Hynes, Michael V. & Peters, John E.(2005). Disposal Options for Ships. Rand Monograph Report, Rand Distribution Services, Santa Monica, CA.
Huth, William L., Morgan, Owen A. & Burkhart, Christopher(2015). Measuring Florida Artificial Reef Economic Benefits: A Synthesis. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Contract FWC-11231.
Johns, Grace, Leeworthy, Vernon R., Bell, Frederick W. & Bonn, Mark A.(2001). Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southwest Florida. Miami, FL., Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Kim, Ju-Yeon, Mjelde, James W., Kim, Tae-Kyun, Lee, Choong-Ki & Ahn, Kyung-Mo (2012). Comparing Willingness-to-Pay Between Residents and Non-residents When Correcting for Hypothetical Bias: Case of Endangered Spotted Seal in South Korea. Ecological Economics, 78, 123131.
Landry, Craig E. & List, John (2007). Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 420429.
List, John A. & Gallet, Craig A. (2001). What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241254.
Loomis, John & Santiago, Luis E. (2011). Testing Differences in Estimation of River Recreation Benefits for International and Domestic Tourists as a Function of Single-Versus Multiple-Destination Day Trips. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(2), 143165.
Milon, J. Walter (1989). Contingent Valuation Experiments for Strategic Behavior. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17, 293308.
Mitchell, Robert C. & Carson, Richard T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. In Resources for the Future. Washington DC.
Oh, Chi-Ok, Draper, Jason & Dixon, Anthony W. (2010). Comparing Resident and Tourist Preferences for Public Beach Access and Related Amenities. Ocean and Coastal Management, 53, 245251.
Rosenberger, Randall S. & Loomis, John B. (2000). Using Meta-Analysis for Benefit Transfer: In-Sample Convergent Validity Tests of an Outdoor Recreation Database. Water Resources Research, 36(4), 10971107.
Vossler, Christian A. & Evans, Mary F. (2009). Bridging the Gap Between the Field and the Lab: Environmental Goods, Policy Maker Input, and Consequentiality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58, 338345.
Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon (2013). Understanding the Consequences of Consequentiality: Testing the Validity of Stated Preferences in the Field. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 86, 137147.
Whittington, Dale (2010). What Have We Learned from 20 years of Stated Preference Research in Developing Countries? Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2, 209236.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
  • ISSN: 2194-5888
  • EISSN: 2152-2812
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed