IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/teepxx/v6y2017i4p374-403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: importance of incentive compatibility

Author

Listed:
  • Ewa Zawojska
  • Mikołaj Czajkowski

Abstract

The stated preference (SP) methods use respondents’ stated choices made in hypothetical situations to infer their preferences for environmental and other public goods. These methods enable researchers to express the general public's preferences in monetary terms, and hence, to estimate the economic value of a change in the quantity or quality of the goods. However, a key question remains regarding SP methods’ validity: do the value estimates obtained from an SP study reflect respondents’ true preferences? Numerous empirical investigations have tested SP methods’ validity, but overall conclusions are mixed. We critically re-evaluate this evidence considering the issue of the necessary conditions for incentive compatibility of SP surveys. Our analysis shows that once theory-based conditions for incentive compatibility are taken into account, the available studies consistently show that the SP methods provide valid estimates of actual preferences. As a result, we argue that SP surveys must be made incentive compatible in order to observe consumers’ true preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:teepxx:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:374-403
    DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2017.1322537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21606544.2017.1322537
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21606544.2017.1322537?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. 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).
    2. Simon Gwara & Edilegnaw Wale & Alfred Odindo & Chris Buckley, 2020. "Why do We Know So Much and Yet So Little? A Scoping Review of Willingness to Pay for Human Excreta Derived Material in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-25, August.
    3. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    4. 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).
    5. Meginnis, Keila & Hanley, Nick & Mujumbusi, Lazaaro & Lamberton, Poppy H.L., 2020. "Non-monetary numeraires: Varying the payment vehicle in a choice experiment for health interventions in Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    8. Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Zawojska, Ewa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Louviere, Jordan, 2018. "Mitigating strategic misrepresentation of values in open-ended stated preference surveys by using negative reinforcement," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 153-166.
    9. Aleksandra Wiśniewska & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2018. "Publicly funded cultural institutions – a comparative economic valuation study," Working Papers 2018-22, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. 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.
    11. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    12. Zawojska Ewa, 2017. "A Consequential Contingent Valuation Referendum: Still Not Enough to Elicit True Preferences for Public Goods!," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 2(49), pages 73-90, December.
    13. Kaczmarski, Jesse I., 2022. "Public support for community microgrid services," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Tomasz Gajderowicz & Marek Giergiczny & Gabriela Grotkowska & Urszula Sztandar-Sztanderska, 2020. "Choosing the Future: Economic Preferences for Higher Education Using Discrete Choice Experiment Method," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(4), pages 510-539, June.
    15. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Marco Horvath, 2021. "Consequentiality, Elicitation Formats, and the Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity: Evidence from Germany," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(3), pages 626-640.
    16. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    17. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    18. Sviataslau Valasiuk, 2023. "Is international free-riding immanent to transboundary spatial conservation?," Working Papers 2023-09, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. 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.
    20. Stella Nalukwago Settumba & Marian Shanahan & Willings Botha & Muhammad Zulilhaam Ramli & Georgina Mary Chambers, 2019. "Reliability and Validity of the Contingent Valuation Method for Estimating Willingness to Pay: A Case of In Vitro Fertilisation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 103-110, February.
    21. 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.
    22. Bart Neuts, 2020. "Mixed pricing strategies in museums: Examining the potential of voluntary contributions for capturing consumer surplus," Tourism Economics, , vol. 26(1), pages 115-136, February.

    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:teepxx:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:374-403. 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/teep20 .

    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.