Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 125–142 | Cite as

Do Respondents Adjust Their Expected Utility in the Presence of an Outcome Certainty Attribute in a Choice Experiment?

Article

Abstract

In a stated preference valuation survey, the expected benefits of environmental policies are generally presented to respondents without reference to the fact that the predicted outcomes are rarely known with certainty. This omission may reduce the credibility of the valuation scenario and contribute to hypothetical bias. In the study outlined in this paper, a choice experiment was conducted to elicit values for environmental improvements in the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), with outcome certainty included as a separate attribute. Different specifications of the utility functions, which imply different behavioural assumptions about the way choices have been made, generate variations in value estimates. Results showed that respondents incorporate outcome certainty into their decisions, but that an expected utility formulation, represented by the interaction between environmental protection and likelihood of occurrence, underestimated environmental values. Some environmental protection values appear to be independent of outcome certainty, which may be consistent with existence values and other non-use categories. A partial expected utility model is cautiously recommended.

Keywords

Choice experiment Expected utility Uncertainty  Coral reefs  Existence values 

References

  1. Aadland DM, Caplan AJ, Phillips OR (2007) A Bayesian examination of information and uncertainty in contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain 35:149–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akter S, Bennett J, Ward MB (2012) Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: evidence from an Australian choice experiment. Glob Environ Change 22:736–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop RC (1978) Endangered species and uncertainty: the economics of a safe minimum standard. Am J Agric Econ 60:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burghart DR, Cameron TA, Gerdes GR (2007) Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention. J Risk Uncertain 35:77–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron TA (2005) Updating subjective risks in the presence of conflicting information: an application to climate change. J Risk Uncertain 30:63–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciriacy-Wantrup SV (1952) Resource conservation: economics and policies. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  7. Furnas M (2003) Catchments and corals: terrestrial runoff to the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Institute of Marine Science and CRC Reef Research Centre, TownsvilleGoogle Scholar
  8. Garnaut R (2008) The Garnaut climate change review. Cambridge University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  9. Glenk K, Colombo S (2011) How sure can you be? A framework for considering delivery uncertainty in benefit assessments based on stated preference methods. J Agr Econ 62:25–46Google Scholar
  10. Glenk K, Colombo S (2013) Modelling outcome-related risk in choice experiments. Aust J Agric Res Econ 57:559–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (2009) Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2009. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, TownsvilleGoogle Scholar
  12. Grijalva T, Berrens RP, Shaw WD (2011) Species preservation versus development: an experimental investigation under uncertainty. Ecol Econ 70(5):995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanemann WM (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ? Am Econ Rev 81(3):635–647Google Scholar
  14. Hausman DM, McPherson MS (1993) Taking ethics seriously: economics and contemporary moral philosophy. J Econ Lit 31:671–731Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knetsch JL (2007) Biased valuations, damage assessments, and policy choices: the choice of measure matters. Ecol Econ 63:684–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Ladbury JL, Hinsz VB (2009) Uncertainty avoidance influences choices for potential gains but not losses. Curr Psychol 28:187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li Z, Hensher DA, Rose JM (2010) Willingness to pay for travel time reliability in passenger transport: a review and some new empirical evidence. Transport Res E-Log 46(3):384–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lough J (2007) Climate and climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. In: Johnson J, Marshall P (eds) Climate change and the Great Barrier Reef: a vulnerability assessment. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Australian Greenhouse Office, TownsvilleGoogle Scholar
  21. Macmillan D, Hanley N, Bucklan S (1996) A contingent valuation study of uncertain environmental gains. Scot J Polit Econ 43:519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mazzotta MJ, Opaluch JJ (1995) Decision making when choices are complex: a test of Heiner’s hypothesis. Land Econ 71(4):500–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poe GL, Giraud KL, Loomis JB (2005) Computational methods for measuring the differences of empirical distributions. Am J Agr Econ 87:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J Econ Behav Organ 3:323–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Randall A (1991) The value of biodiversity. Ambio 20:64–68Google Scholar
  26. Randall A, Farmer M (1995) Benefits, costs and a safe minimum standard of conservation. In: Bromley D (ed) Handbook of environmental economics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 26–44Google Scholar
  27. Rigby D, Alcon F, Burton M (2010) Supply uncertainty and the economic value of irrigation water. Eur Rev Agric Econ 37(1):97–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts DC, Boyer TA, Lusk JL (2008) Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty. Ecol Econ 66:584–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Savage LJ (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Shaw WD, Baker J (2010) Models of location choice and willingness to pay to avoid hurricane risks for Hurricane Katrina evacuees. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 28(1):87–114Google Scholar
  31. Shaw WD, Woodward RT (2008) Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models. Resour Energy Econ 30:66–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shogren JF, Shin SY, Hayes DJ, Kliebenstein JB (1994) Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Am Econ Rev 84(1):255–270Google Scholar
  33. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Viscusi WK (1989) Prospective reference theory: toward an explanation of the paradoxes. J Risk Uncertain 2:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  36. Wielgus J, Gerber LR, Sala E, Bennett J (2009) Including risk in stated-preference economic valuations: experiments on choices for marine recreation. J Environ Manag 90:3401–3409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolanski E, De’ath G (2005) Predicting the impacts of present and future human land-use on the Great Barrier Reef. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 64:504–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and Law, CQUniversityRockhamptonAustralia

Personalised recommendations