The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Experimental Methods in Environmental Economics

  • Jason F. Shogren
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2568

Abstract

Experimental methods have long played a role in environmental economics. The strong link emerged due to the need to make decisions within the complex confluences of markets, missing markets, and no markets. Two broad areas of experimental work are discussed, institutional and valuation. Institutional experiments help reveal how good ideas for environmental protection can go badly with poorly understood rules and incentives; valuation experiments help illustrate how values for environmental protection depend on the socialization created, directly or indirectly, by the exchange institutions in operation.

Keywords

Asymmetric information Bargaining Coase Theorem Common property resources Endowment effect Environmental economics Experimental methods in environmental economics Hypothetical bias Institutional experiments Land conservation Non-market valuation Pigouvian taxes Pollution permits Provision point mechanism Public goods Social costs Transaction costs Valuation experiments Value elicitation Willingness to accept compensation Willingness to pay 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. Akerlof, G. 1997. Social distance and social decisions. Econometrica 65: 1005–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, S. 2003. Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, J. 1983. Validating revealed preferences. Economic Analysis and Policy 13: 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohm, P. 1972. Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Review 3: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohm, P. 2003. Experimental evaluations of policy instruments. In Handbook of environmental economics, ed. K.G. Mäler and J. Vincent, vol. 1, 438–460. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  6. Bohm, P., and B. Carlén. 1999. Emission quota trade among the few: Laboratory evidence of joint implementation among committed countries. Resource and Energy Economics 21: 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cason, T. 1995. An experimental investigation of the seller incentives in the EPA’s emission trading auction. American Economic Review 85: 905–922.Google Scholar
  8. Cason, T., and C. Plott. 1996. EPA’s new emissions trading mechanism: A laboratory evaluation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cason, T., and L. Gangadharan. 2004. Auction design for voluntary conservation programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86: 1211–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherry, T., T. Crocker, and J. Shogren. 2003. Rationality spillovers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherry, T., S. Kroll, and J. Shogren. 2007. Experimental methods, environmental economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Coase, R. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coursey, D., and W. Schulze. 1986. The application of laboratory experimental economics to the contingent valuation of public goods. Public Choice 49: 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coursey, D., J. Hovis, and W. Schulze. 1987. The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102: 679–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cummings, R., and L. Taylor. 1999. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review 83: 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanley, N., J. Shogren, and B. White. 2007. Environmental economics in theory and practice. 2nd ed. London/New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  17. Harrison, G., and M. McKee. 1985. Experimental evaluation of the Coase theorem. Journal of Law and Economics 28: 653–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffman, E., and M. Spitzer. 1982. The Coase theorem: Some experimental tests. Journal of Law and Economics 25: 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ishikida, T., J. Ledyard, M. Olson, and D. Porter. 2000. Experimental testbedding of a pollution trading system: Southern California’s RECLAIM emissions market. In Research in experimental economics, ed. R.M. Isaac, vol. 8. Greenwich: JAI Press/, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., J. Knetsch, and R. Thaler. 1990. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98: 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 2000. Choices, values and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Knetsch, J., and J.A. Sinden. 1984. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of values. Quarterly Journal of Economics 99: 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kroll, S., T. Cherry, and J. Shogren. 2007. Voting, punishment and public goods. Economic Inquiry 45: 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ledyard, J. 1995. Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In Handbook of experimental economics, ed. J. Kagel and A. Roth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lusk, J., and J. Shogren. 2007. Experimental auctions: Methods and applications in economic and marketing research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ostrom, E. 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3): 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parkhurst, G., J. Shogren, C. Bastian, P. Kivi, J. Donner, and R. Smith. 2002. Agglomeration bonus: An incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Economics 41: 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plott, C. 1983. Externalities and corrective policies in experimental markets. Economic Journal 93: 106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rhoads, T., and J. Shogren. 2003. Regulation through collaboration: Final authority and information symmetry in environmental Coasean bargaining. Journal of Regulatory Economics 24: 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rondeau, D., W. Schulze, and G. Poe. 1999. Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism. Journal of Public Economics 72: 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sabel, C., A. Fung, and B. Karkkainen. 2000. Beyond backyard environmentalism. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Shogren, J. 2006. Experimental methods and valuation. In Handbook of environmental economics, ed. K.G. Mäler and J. Vincent, vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  33. Shogren, J., S. Shin, D. Hayes, and J. Kliebenstein. 1994. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. American Economic Review 84: 255–270.Google Scholar
  34. Shogren, J., S. Cho, C. Koo, J. List, C. Park, P. Polo, and R. Wilhelmi. 2001. Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Resource and Energy Economics 23: 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason F. Shogren
    • 1
  1. 1.