IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v43y2000i4p541-559.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hypothetical and Real Economic Commitments, and Social Status, in Valuing a Species Protection Programme

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Getzner

Abstract

There has been a long-running debate on the reliability and validity of the contingent valuation method, connected with the hypotheticality of the situation when respondents are asked to state their willingness to pay (WTP) for species protection (the so-called 'hypothetical bias'). Additionally, a number of recent arguments regarding donations to good causes and the benefits of achieving social status have questioned the motives of respondents who have stated their WTP. An experiment at the University of Klagenfurt tested for hypothetical bias by asking participants to state their hypothetical and real WTP for a species protection programme in the Hohe Tauern national park. Hypothetical and real WTP differed significantly. Additionally, it emerged that the pure ecological motive for stating a WTP might be concealed by arguments about donating in order to achieve social status and contributing to a good cause.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Getzner, 2000. "Hypothetical and Real Economic Commitments, and Social Status, in Valuing a Species Protection Programme," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 541-559.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:43:y:2000:i:4:p:541-559
    DOI: 10.1080/713676576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713676576
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/713676576?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    2. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13.
    5. Ward, Adrian & Yin, Kwong-sang & Dargusch, Paul & Fulton, Elizabeth A. & Aziz, Ammar Abdul, 2017. "The Impact of Land Use Change on Carbon Stored in Mountain Grasslands and Shrublands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 114-124.
    6. Mann, Stefan, 2003. "Die Expertenbewertung als Alternative zur Kontingenzbewertung," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-8.
    7. Gatto, Paola & Vidale, Enrico & Secco, Laura & Pettenella, Davide, 2014. "Exploring the willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services by residents of the Veneto Region," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Sauer, Uta & Fischer, Anke, 2010. "Willingness to pay, attitudes and fundamental values -- On the cognitive context of public preferences for diversity in agricultural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-9, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jenpmg:v:43:y:2000:i:4:p:541-559. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    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.