Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 473–496 | Cite as

Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries

  • Joseph Cook
  • Marc Jeuland
  • Brian Maskery
  • Dale Whittington
Article

Abstract

Previous studies have found that contingent valuation (CV) respondents who are given overnight to reflect on a CV scenario have 30–40% lower average willingness-to-pay (WTP) than respondents who are interviewed in a single session. This “time to think” (TTT) effect could explain much of the gap between real and hypothetical WTP observed in experimental studies. Yet giving time to think is still rare in binary or multinomial discrete choice studies. We review the literature on increasing survey respondents’ opportunities to reflect on their answers and synthesize results from parallel TTT studies on private vaccine demand in four countries. Across all four countries, we find robust and consistent evidence from both raw data and multivariate models for a TTT effect: giving respondents overnight to think reduced the probability that a respondent said he or she would buy the hypothetical vaccines. Average WTP fell approximately 40%. Respondents with time to think were also more certain of their answers, and a majority said they used the opportunity to consult with their spouse or family. We conclude with a discussion of why researchers might be hesitant to adopt the TTT methodology.

Keywords

Stated preference Hypothetical bias Contingent valuation Stated choice 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10640_2011_9508_MOESM1_ESM.docx (184 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 185 kb)

References

  1. Alvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N (2006) Improving the process of valuing non-market benefits: combining citizens’ juries with choice modelling. Land Econ 82(3): 465–478Google Scholar
  2. Blumenschein K, Blomquist GC, Johannesson M, Horn N, Freeman P (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ J 118(525): 114–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brouwer R, Akter S, Brander L, Haque E (2008) Economic valuation of flood risk exposure and reduction in a severely flood prone developing country. Environ Dev Econ 14: 397–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron TA, DeShazo JR (2010) Differential attention to attributes in utility-theoretic choice models. J Choice Model 3(3): 73–115Google Scholar
  5. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manag 17(3): 230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canh DG, Whittington D, Thoa LTK, Utomo N, Hoa NT, Poulos C, Thuy DTD, Kim D, Nyamete A (2006) Household demand for typhoid fever vaccines in Hue, Vietnam. Health Policy Planning 21(3): 241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsson F (2010) Design of stated preference surveys: is there more to learn from behavioral economics?. Environ Resour Econ 46(2): 167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1): 1502–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK, Conaway M, Martin K (1997) Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land Econ 73(2): 151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson RT, Louviere JJ (2011) A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resourc Econ 49(4): 539–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook J, Jeuland M, Maskery B, Lauria D, Sur D, Clemens J, Whittington D (2009) Re-visiting socially-optimal vaccine subsidies: an empirical application in Kolkata, India. J Policy Anal Manag 28(1): 6–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook J, Jeuland M, Whittington D, Poulos C, Clemens J, Sur D, Anh DD, Agtini M, Bhutta Z, DTES Group (2008) The cost-effectiveness of typhoid Vi vaccination programs: calculations for four urban sites in four Asian countries. Vaccine 26: 6305–6316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook J, Sur D, Clemens J, Whittington D (2009) Evaluating investments in typhoid vaccines in two slums in Kolkata, India. J Health Popul Nutr 27(6): 711–724Google Scholar
  14. Cook J, Whittington D, Canh DG, Johnson FR, Nyamete A (2007) The reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue, Vietnam. Econ Inq 45(1): 100–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delavande A, Giné X, McKenzie D (2010) Measuring subjective expectations in developing countries: a critical review and new evidence. J Dev Econ 94(2): 151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffin CC, Briscoe J, Singh B, Ramasubban R, Bhatia R (1995) Contingent valuation and actual behavior: predicting connections to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India. World Bank Econ Rev 9(3): 373–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrison GW (2006) Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environ Resour Econ 34: 125–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Islam Z, Maskery B, Nyamete A, Horowitz M, Yunus M, Whittington D (2008) Private demand for cholera vaccines in rural Matlab, Bangladesh. Health Policy 85(2): 184–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeuland M, Clemens J, Cook J, Whittington DDCES Group (2009) Incorporating herd protection into cost-effectiveness calculations of new-generation oral cholera vaccines: a multi-site analysis. Value Health 12(6): 899–908Google Scholar
  20. Jeuland M, Lucas M, Clemens J, Whittington D (2009) A cost-benefit analysis of cholera vaccination programs in Beira, Mozambique. World Bank Econ Rev 23(2): 235–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jeuland M, Lucas M, Deen J, Lazaro N, Whittington D (2009) Estimating the private benefits of vaccination against cholera in Beira, Mozambique: a travel cost approach. J Dev Econ 91: 310–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones-Lee MW, Hammerton M, Phillips PR (1985) The value of safety: results of a national sample survey. Econ J 95(377): 49–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kealy MJ, Dovidio JF, Rockel ML (1988) Accuracy in valuation is a matter of degree. Land Econ 64(2): 158–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kealy MJ, Montgomery M, Dovidio JF (1990) Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: does the nature of the good matter?. J Environ Econ Manag 19: 244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim D, Canh DG, Poulos C, Thoa LTK, Cook J, Hoa NT, Nyamete A, Thuy DTD, Deen J, Trach DD, Clemens J, Thiem VD, Anh DD, Whittington D (2008) Private demand for cholera vaccines in Hue, Vietnam. Value Health 11(1): 119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Labao R, Francisco H, Harder D, Santos F (2008) Do colored photographs affect willingness to pay responses for endangered species conservation?. Environ Resour Econ 40(2): 251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lauria DT, Maskery B, Poulos C, Whittington D (2009) An optimization model for reducing typhoid cases in developing countries without increasing public spending. Vaccine 27: 1609–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lauria DT, Whittington D, Choe K, Turingan C, Abiad V (1999) Household demand for improved sanitation services: a case study of Calamba, Phillipines. In: Willis K, Bateman I (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 540–584Google Scholar
  29. Lienhoop N, Macmillan D (2002) Valuing wilderness in Iceland: new approaches in contingent valuation. Icel J Geogr 18(19(1): 29–40Google Scholar
  30. Loomis JB (1989) Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses. Am J Agric Econ 71(1): 76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loomis JB (1990) Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques. J Environ Econ Manag 18: 78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lucas M, Jeuland M, Deen J, Lazaro N, MacMahon M, Nyamete A, Barreto A, Seidlein LV, Cumbane A, Songane FF, Whittington D (2007) Private demand for cholera vaccines in Beira, Mozambique. Vaccine 25(14): 2599–2609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macmillan DC, Philip L, Hanley N, Alvarez-Farizo B (2002) Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches. Ecol Econ 43: 49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nabangchang O (2008) Mobilizing resources for marine turtle conservation in Asia: a cross-country perspective. ASEAN Econ Bull 25(1): 60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reiling SD, Boyle KJ, Phillips ML, Anderson MW (1990) Temporal reliability of contingent values. Land Econ 66(2): 128–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Subade RF (2007) Mechanisms to capture economic values of marine biodiversity: the case of Tubbataha Reefs UNESCO World Heritage Site, Philippines. Marine Policy 31(2): 135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Svedsater H (2007) Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 51(1): 91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Teisl MF, Boyle KJ, McCollum DW, Reiling SD (1995) Test-retest reliability of contingent valuation with independent sample pretest and posttest control groups. Am J Agric Econ 77: 613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vaughan WJ, Rodriguez DJ (2001) Obtaining welfare bounds in discrete-response valuation studies: comment. Land Econ 77(3): 457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Envir Econ Manag 36(2): 170–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitehead J (2005) Environmental risk and averting behavior: predictive validity of jointly estimated revealed and stated behavior data. Environ Resour Econ 32(3): 301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitehead JC, Hoban TJ (1999) Testing for temporal reliability in contingent valuation with time for changes in factors affecting demand. Land Econ 75(3): 453–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whittington D, Lauria DT, Wright AM, Choe K, Hughes JA, Swarna V (1993) Household demand for improved sanitation services in Kumasi, Ghana: a contingent valuation study. Water Resour Res 29(6): 1539–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whittington D, Smith VK, Okorafor A, Okore A, Liu JL, McPhail A (1992) Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. J Environ Econ Manag 22: 205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Whittington D, Sur D, Cook J, Chatterjee S, Maskery B, Lahiri M, Poulos C, Boral S, Nyamete A, Deen J, Ochiai L, Bhattacharya SK (2008) Rethinking cholera and typhoid vaccination policies for the poor: private demand in Kolkata, India. World Dev 37(2): 399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Cook
    • 1
  • Marc Jeuland
    • 2
  • Brian Maskery
    • 3
  • Dale Whittington
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Evans School of Public AffairsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Sanford School of Public Policy and Duke Global Health InstituteDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Policy and Economic Research UnitInternational Vaccine InstituteSeoulKorea
  4. 4.Department of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  5. 5.Manchester Business SchoolManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations