Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects?

  • Jie HeEmail author
  • Jérôme Dupras
  • Franck Ndefo
  • Thomas Poder
Original Paper


We conducted a field stated preferences survey to understand the influence of payment and provision consequentiality script on valuation associated with voluntary contribution. Based on four treatment groups with single or combined consequentiality scripts and a contingent-ranking willingness to pay question, this paper provided some evidence that at least for some attributes, a respondent facing positive provision probability reported a significantly higher preference for the opt-in projects if and only if the payment consequentiality was co-presented. For the payment consequentiality, its impact on valuation was independent of the presence of provision consequentiality. We also discussed the limits of our study and provided suggestions for future research in this line.


Hypothetical bias Payment consequentiality Provision consequentiality Contingent ranking Voluntary donation Ecosystem services valuation 

JEL Classification

Q51 Q57 



  1. Bateman, I.J., Cole, M.A., Georgiou, S., Hadley, D.J.: Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: a case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. J. Environ. Manage. 79(3), 221–231 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beggs, S., Cardell, S., Hausman, J.A.: Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J. Econom. 17, 1–19 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P.: Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiment? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 41, 179–192 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carson, R.T., Groves, T.: Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37(1), 181–210 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., List, J.A.: Consequentiality: a Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1(1/2), 171–207 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Meade, N.F.: Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37, 173–210 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C.: Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19, 383–402 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christie, M.: An examination of the disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay using the contingent valuation method: the case of Red Kite Conservation in the United Kingdom. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 55, 159–169 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummings, R.G., Taylor, L.O.: Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys? Land Econ. 74, 203–215 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czajikowski, M.C., Vossler, W., Budzinski, A.Wisniewska, Zawojska, E.: Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive comptability of stated preferences mothods. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 142, 47–63 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster, V., Mourato, S.: Testing for consistency in contingent ranking experiments. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44(2), 309–328 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glenk, K., Fischer, A.: Insurance, prevention or just wait and see? Public preference for water management strategies in the context f climate change. Ecol. Econ. 69, 2279–2291 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groothuis, A.P., Mohr, T.M., Whitehead, J.C., Cockerill, K.: Endogenous consequentiality in stated preference referendum data: the influence of the randomly assigned tax amount. Land Econ. 93(2), 258–268 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Habibov, N., Cheung, A., Auchynnikava, A.: Does social trust increase willingness to pay taxes to improve public healthcare? Cross-sectional cross-country instrumental variable analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 189, 25–34 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herriges, J., Kling, C., Liu, C.C., Tobias, J.: What are the Consequentiality of Consequentiality? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 59(1), 67–81 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Interis, M.G., Petrolia, D.R.: The effects of consequentiality in binary- and multinomial-choice surveys. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 39(2), 201–216 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. Jones, N., Sophoulis, C.M., Malesios, C.: Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. J. Soc. Econ. 37, 2478–2491 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jorgenson, B.S., Syme, G.J.: Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecol. Econ. 33, 251–265 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jorgenson, B.S., Syme, G.J., Bishop, B.J., Nancarrow, B.E.: Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 14, 131–150 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landry, C.E., List, J.A.: Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence from the field. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 89(2), 420–429 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lareau, T.J., Rae, D.A.: Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: an application of contingent ranking technique. South. Econ. J. 55(3), 728–742 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. List, J.A., Gallet, C.A.: What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ. Resour. Econ. 20(3), 241–254 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Little, J., Broadbent, C.D., Berrens, R.P.: Meta-analysis of the probability of disparity between actual and hypothetical valuation responses: extension and preliminary new results. West. Econ. Forum 11, 1–12 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. Little, J., Berrens, R.: Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ. Bull. 3(6), 1–13 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. Mitani, Y., Flores, N.E.: Demand revelation, hypothetical bias, and threshold public goods provision. Environ. Resour. Econ. 44(2), 231–243 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitani, Y., Flores, N.E.: Hypothetical bias reconsidered: payment and provision uncertainties in a threshold provision mechanism. Environ. Resour. Econ. 59(3), 433–454 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T.: Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method, p. 1989. Resour. Future, Washington, DC (1989)Google Scholar
  28. Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., Weatherhead, D.: A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 30(3), 313–325 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nepal, M., Berrens, R.P., Bohara, A.K.: Assessing perceived consequentiality: evidence from a contingent valuation survey on global climate change. Int. J. Ecol. Econ. Stat. 14(P09), 14–29 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. Oehlmann, M., Meyerhoff, J.: Stated presences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany: do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in intuitions matter? J. Environ. Econ. Policy 6(1), 1–16 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Penn, J.M., Hu, W.: Understanding hypothetical bias: an enhanced meta-analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 100(4), 1186–1206 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poder, T.G., Dupras, J., Fetue Ndefo, F., He, J.: The economic value of the greater montreal blue network (Quebec, Canada): a contingent choice study using real projects to estimate non-market aquatic ecosystem services benefits. PLoS ONE 11(8), e0158901 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poe, G.L., Vossler, C.A.: Consequentiality and contingent valuation: an emerging paradigm. MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive (2009).
  34. Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., Ariely, D.: Zero as a special price: the true value of free products. Mark. Sci. 26(6), 742–757 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor, L.O., Morrison, M.D., Boyle, K.J.: Exchange rules and the incentive compatibility of choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 47(2), 197–220 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vossler, C.A., Evans, M.F.: Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 58(3), 338–345 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vossler, C.A., Watson, S.B.: Understanding the consequentiality of consequentiality: testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 86, 137–147 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vossler, C.A., Doyon, M., Rondeau, D.: Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 4(4), 145–171 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zawojska, E., Bartczak, A., Czajkowski, M.: Disentangling the effects of payment and provision consequentiality and risk preferences on stated preferences. Working Papers series no. 1(260), Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw (2018).

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département d’Économique, École de GestionUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Département des sciences naturelles, l’Institut des sciences de la forêt tempérée (ISFORT)Université du Québec à OutaouaisRiponCanada
  3. 3.École de santé publique - Département de gestion, d’évaluation et de politique de santéUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations