Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 313–335 | Cite as

An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product

  • Eva Camacho-Cuena
  • Aurora García-Gallego
  • Nikolaos Georgantzís
  • Gerardo Sabater-Grande

Abstract

Using a within-subject experiment, we compare hypothetical andreal willingness to pay (WTP) for an improvement in therecyclability of a product. Subjects are faced with a real paymentscenario after they have responded to a hypothetical question.Contrary to most of the results obtained in similar studies, at apopulation level, there are no significant median differencesbetween actual and hypothetical stated values of WTP. However,within-subject comparisons between hypothetical and actual valuesindicate that subjects stating a low (high) hypothetical WTP tendto underestimate (overestimate) the value of their actualcontributions.

contingent valuation laboratory experiments product design product recyclability vertical differentiation willingness to pay 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bjornstad, D., R. Cummings and L. Osborne (1997), 'A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method', Environmental and Resource Economics 10, 207-221.Google Scholar
  2. Blackburn, M., G. W. Harrison and E. E. Rutström (1994), 'Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys', American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 1084-1088.Google Scholar
  3. Blumenschein, K., M. Johannesson, G. C. Blomquist, R. Liljas and R. M. O'Conor (1998), 'Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation', Southern Economic Journal 65, 169-177.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, T. C., P. A. Champ, R. C. Bishop and D. W. McCollum (1996), 'Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good', Land Economics 72, 152-166.Google Scholar
  5. Carson R. T., N. E. Flores, K. M. Martin and J. L. Wright (1996), 'Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for the Quasi-Public Goods', Land Economics 72, 80-99.Google Scholar
  6. Carson, R. T. (1997), 'Contingent Valuation Surveys and Test of Insensitivity to Scope', in R. J. Kopp, W.W. Pommerehne and N. Schwarz, eds., Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Carson, R. T. (2000), 'Contingent Valuation: A User's Guide', Environmental Science & Technology 34, 1413-1418.Google Scholar
  8. Champ, P. A., T. C. Brown and D. W. McCollum (1997), 'Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 151-162.Google Scholar
  9. Cummings, R. G., G.W. Harrison and E. E. Rutström (1995), 'Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?', American Economic Review 85, 260-266.Google Scholar
  10. Cummings, R. G., S. Elliot, G. W. Harrison and J. Murphy (1997), 'Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?', Journal of Political Economy 105, 609-621.Google Scholar
  11. Cummings, R. G. and L. O. Taylor (1999), 'Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method', American Economic Review 89, 649-665.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, D. D. and C. A. Holt (1994), Experimental Economics. Princenton: Princenton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fox, J. A., J. F. Shogren, D. J. Hayes and J. B. Kliebenstein (1998), 'CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets', American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 455-465.Google Scholar
  14. Hausman, J.A. (1993), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. North Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Jensen, P. R. (1995), 'Vaf Miljø-hvorfor og Hvordan', Samfundsøkonomen 8, 39-45.Google Scholar
  16. Johannesson, M., B. Liljas and P. O. Johansson (1998), 'An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions', Applied Economics 30, 643-647.Google Scholar
  17. Johannesson, M., G. C. Blomquist, K. Blumenschein, P. O. Johansson and B. Liljas (1999), 'Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses', Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 21-32.Google Scholar
  18. List, J. A., M. Margolis and J. F. Shogren (1998), 'Hypothetical-Actual Bid Calibration of a Multigood Auction', Economics Letters 60, 263-268.Google Scholar
  19. List, J. A. and J. F. Shogren (1998), 'Between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment', Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37, 193-205.Google Scholar
  20. List, J. A. (2001), 'Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards', American Economic Review 91, 1498-1507.Google Scholar
  21. List, J. A. and C. A. Gallet (2001), 'What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis', Environmental and Resource Economics 20, 241-254.Google Scholar
  22. List, J. A. and J. F. Shogren (2002), 'Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43, 219-233.Google Scholar
  23. Loomis, J., A. Gonzalez-Caban and R. Gregory (1994), 'Substitutes and Budget Constraints in Contingent Valuation', Land Economics 70, 499-506.Google Scholar
  24. Mansfield, C. (1998), 'A Consistent Method for Calibrating Contingent Value Survey Data', Southern Economic Journal 64, 665-681.Google Scholar
  25. Neill, H. R. (1995), 'The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 393-397.Google Scholar
  26. Nyborg, K. (2000), 'Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: Interpretation and Aggregation of Environmental Values', Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 42, 305-322.Google Scholar
  27. Shogren, J. F. and G. C. Durden (1991), The First 15 Years: Contributors and Contributions of the Journal Environmental Economics and Management: 1974-1988', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20, 205-209.Google Scholar
  28. Shogren, J. F. (1993), 'Experimental Markets and Environmental Policy', Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 3, 117-129.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, V. K. (2000), 'JEEM and Non-Market Valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39, 351-374.Google Scholar
  30. Stewart, M. (1983), 'On Least Squares Estimation when the Dependent Variable is Grouped', Review of Economic Studies 50, 141-149.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Camacho-Cuena
    • 1
  • Aurora García-Gallego
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Georgantzís
    • 1
  • Gerardo Sabater-Grande
    • 1
  1. 1.Economics Department and LEE/LINEEXUniversitat Jaume ICastellónSpain
  2. 2.Economics DepartmentUniversitat Jaume ICastellóonSpain

Personalised recommendations