Abstract
This paper introduces a symposium on the issue of how stated preference (SP) research can best cope with ‘anomalies’ (i.e. systematic deviations from the predictions of standard economic theory) in survey responses. It proposes a framework for constructive debate, recognising (i) the legitimate aspirations of SP research, (ii) the relevance of evidence from sources other than best-practice SP, and (iii) the precautionary value of investigating strategies for coping with suspected anomalies, even if questions about the robustness of anomalies have not been finally resolved. Five alternative coping strategies, discussed in more detail in the symposium, are briefly introduced.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
I. Bateman et al. (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual Department for Transport and Edward Elgar Cheltenham
C. Camerer (1995) Individual Decision Making K. John R. Alvin (Eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ
M. Hanemann (1991) ArticleTitle‘Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?’ American Economic Review 81 635–647
D. Kahneman A. Tversky (Eds) (2000) Choices, Values, and Frames Russell Sage Foundation and Cambridge University Press Cambridge
J.A. List (2005) ArticleTitle‘Scientific Numerology, Preference Anomalies, and Environmental Policymaking’ Environmental & Resource Economics 32 35–53 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s10640-005-6027-1
R. Sugden (1999) Alternatives to the Neoclassical Theory of Choice I. Bateman K. Willis (Eds) Valuing Environmental Preferences Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EC and Developing Countries Oxford University Press Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
JEL classifications: D61, D63, Q51
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sugden, R. Anomalies and Stated Preference Techniques: A Framework for a Discussion of Coping Strategies. Environ Resource Econ 32, 1–12 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-6025-3
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-6025-3