IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v176y2020ics0921800919315708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Schläpfer, Felix
  • Getzner, Michael

Abstract

Insights from behavioral economics have proven to be relevant for designing and analyzing stated preference (SP) studies. In this paper, we propose an empirical strategy in SP research that (1) evaluates what are arguably the key behavioral assumptions, (2) interprets the responses strictly in light of the outcomes of that evaluation, and (3) reports a broader set of potentially relevant results. The approach relies on specific elements of survey design and analysis not required by current guidelines for SP studies. We illustrate its application with data from a SP study on future management schemes for the Austrian federal forests. In the evaluation of assumptions we find that the response scale, the provision of third-party information, the combination of valuation scenarios, and loss aversion all have an effect on stated WTP. We report tests of behavioral assumptions, estimates from several treatment conditions and complementary preference information, including median values and approval rates in referendum questions involving true cost information. The results demonstrate the feasibility of systematic behavioral approaches in applied SP work. Future research should further explore how the key behavioral assumptions are most usefully tested, and which treatment conditions may produce the most relevant and transparent information for decision-makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:176:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919315708
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919315708
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106720?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Itamar Simonson, 2016. "Imperfect Progress: An Objective Quality Assessment of the Role of User Reviews in Consumer Decision Making, A Commentary on de Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(6), pages 840-845.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    3. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    4. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    5. Strong, Aaron & Flores, Nicholas E., 2008. "Estimating the economic benefits of acidic rock drainage clean up using cost shares," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 348-355, April.
    6. Lisa A. Robinson & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Behavioral Economics and Regulatory Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1408-1422, September.
    7. Jeff Bennett (ed.), 2011. "The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13490.
    8. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Wiktor Adamowicz & Diane Dupont, 2019. "Incorporating Stated Consequentiality Questions in Stated Preference Research," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(3), pages 293-306.
    9. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    10. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    11. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
    12. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    13. William Desvousges & Kristy Mathews & Kenneth Train, 2015. "An Adding-up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(3), pages 556-571.
    14. Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381.
    15. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2018. "A novel approach to estimating the demand value of public safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 285-305.
    16. Nick Hanley & Jason Shogren, 2005. "Is Cost–Benefit Analysis Anomaly-Proof?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 13-24, September.
    17. Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
    18. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    19. Felix Schläpfer, 2017. "Stated Preferences For Public Services: A Classification And Survey Of Approaches," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 258-280, February.
    20. Flores, Nicholas E. & Strong, Aaron, 2007. "Cost credibility and the stated preference analysis of public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 195-205, September.
    21. Richard Bishop & Kevin Boyle & Richard Carson & David Chapman & Matthew DeBell & Colleen Donovan & W. Michael Hanemann & Barbara Kanninen & Matthew Konopka & Raymond Kopp & Jon Krosnick & John List & , 2017. "Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: The BP Oil Spill," Natural Field Experiments 00610, The Field Experiments Website.
    22. Raj Chetty, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 1-33, May.
    23. Ewa Zawojska & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: importance of incentive compatibility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 374-403, October.
    24. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    25. Ami, Dominique & Aprahamian, Frédéric & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stéphane, 2018. "When do social cues and scientific information affect stated preferences? Insights from an experiment on air pollution," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 33-46.
    26. Vossler, Christian A. & Holladay, J. Scott, 2018. "Alternative value elicitation formats in contingent valuation: Mechanism design and convergent validity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 133-145.
    27. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    28. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    29. Druckman, James N., 2004. "Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 671-686, November.
    30. Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2012. "Behavioral Economics and Environmental Policy," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 75-99, August.
    31. Schlapfer, Felix & Schmitt, Marcel, 2007. "Anchors, endorsements, and preferences: A field experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 229-243, September.
    32. Daniel Kahneman & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 221-234, Winter.
    33. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    34. Schaafsma, Marije & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele, 2018. "Guidance for Deliberative Monetary Valuation Studies," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 12(2-3), pages 267-323, November.
    35. Patricia A. Champ & Nicholas E. Flores & Thomas C. Brown & PJames Chivers, 2002. "Contingent Valuation and Incentives," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 591-604.
    36. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    37. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    38. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    39. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 63-76, March.
    40. Alex Y. Lo & Clive L. Spash, 2013. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search Of A Democratic And Value Plural Approach To Environmental Policy," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 768-789, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2024. "Limited Substitutability, Relative Price Changes and the Uplifting of Public Natural Capital Values," CESifo Working Paper Series 11156, CESifo.
    2. Luigi La Riccia & Vanessa Assumma & Marta Carla Bottero & Federico Dell’Anna & Angioletta Voghera, 2023. "A Contingent Valuation-Based Method to Valuate Ecosystem Services for a Proactive Planning and Management of Cork Oak Forests in Sardinia (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-28, May.
    3. Felix Schläpfer, 2021. "Inadequate Standards in the Valuation of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services: Why Economists, Environmental Scientists and Policymakers Should Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Felix Schläpfer, 2021. "Inadequate Standards in the Valuation of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services: Why Economists, Environmental Scientists and Policymakers Should Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    2. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    3. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    5. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    6. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    7. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    8. Schläpfer, Felix & Schmitt, Marcel & Roschewitz, Anna, 2008. "Competitive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for public goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 574-589, April.
    9. Tobias Börger & Tenaw G. Abate & Margrethe Aanesen & Ewa Zawojska, 2021. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Experimental Design Effects on Self-Reported Perceptions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(2), pages 407-424.
    10. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    11. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.
    14. Wainger, Lisa A. & Helcoski, Ryan & Farge, Kevin W. & Espinola, Brandy A. & Green, Gary T., 2018. "Evidence of a Shared Value for Nature," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 107-116.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Xie, Lusi & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Kecinski, Maik & Fooks, Jacob R., 2022. "Using economic experiments to assess the validity of stated preference contingent behavior responses," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    17. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    18. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    19. Christian A. Vossler & Stéphane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2023. "Revisiting the Gap between the Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept for Public Goods," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(2), pages 413-445.
    20. Aleksandra Wiśniewska & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "An economic valuation of access to cultural institutions: museums, theatres, and cinemas," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 44(4), pages 563-587, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:176:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919315708. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.