IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ukm/jlekon/v52y2018i3p115-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Status Quo Interpretation Affect Welfare Estimates?

Author

Listed:
  • Hasan-Basri, Bakti

    (Department of Economics and Agribusiness School of Economics, Finance and Banking Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok 06010 Kedah MALAYSIA)

  • Rawi, Shamsul Bahrain

    (Department of Economics and Agribusiness School of Economics, Finance and Banking Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok 06010 Kedah MALAYSIA)

  • Omar, Hamimi

    (School of Tourism, Hospitality and Environmental Management College of Law, Government and International Studies Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok 06010 Kedah MALAYSIA)

Abstract

In choice experiments (CEs), respondents select their most preferred alternative from a series of choices. One of these alternatives is the status quo (SQ) option, which resembles the current scenario. Previous studies have shown that the way the researcher defines the SQ may be different from how the respondents interpret the same option. Using the case study of white water rafting (WWR) recreation, we investigated the effect of SQ definition on the demand function used to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) of students who participate in WWR. We applied the confidence interval approach, where WTP values are considered to be significantly different if their confidence intervals do not overlap. We found that the WTP estimates for some attributes (i.e., challenge at the advanced and intermediate levels, and advanced safety) were statistically different. The number of significant estimates suggest that the SQ interpreted by the respondents (as an individual and as a group) are better than that of defined by the researchers. Therefore, we suggest that for purchasing decisions related to nature-based recreational goods such as WWR, the SQ should be determined by the respondents rather than by the researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Rawi, Shamsul Bahrain & Omar, Hamimi, 2018. "Does Status Quo Interpretation Affect Welfare Estimates?," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(3), pages 115-128.
    • Handle: RePEc:ukm:jlekon:v:52:y:2018:i:3:p:115-128
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2018-5203-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ukm.my/jem/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/jeko_523-9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2018-5203-9?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dale Whittington & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp201009s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2010.
    2. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    3. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    5. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    6. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    7. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    8. Corfman, Kim P & Lehmann, Donald R, 1987. "Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, June.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    10. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    11. Buckley, Ralf, 2012. "Rush as a key motivation in skilled adventure tourism: Resolving the risk recreation paradox," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 961-970.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    13. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
    14. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    15. Tsaur, Sheng-Hshiung & Lin, Wei-Rong & Liu, Jui Shiang, 2013. "Sources of challenge for adventure tourists: Scale development and validation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 85-93.
    16. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2008. "Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 616-625, April.
    17. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    18. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    19. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    2. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    3. Rhona Barr & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Investigating fishers� preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," GRI Working Papers 101, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    4. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. 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.
    7. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Mohd Mustafa, Muzafarshah & Bakar, Normizan, 2019. "Are Malaysian Consumers Willing to Pay for Hybrid Cars’ Attributes?," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 53(1), pages 121-134.
    8. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    9. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    10. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2017. "Market Experience Matters: Status Quo Effect in the Economic Valuation of Consumer Preferences for Local Produce," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258290, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Miller, Sini & Tait, Peter & Saunders, Caroline, 2015. "Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: A choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 207-214.
    12. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    13. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.
    14. Greiner, Romy & Ballweg, Julie, 2013. "Estimating the supply of on-farm biodiversity conservation services by north Australian pastoralists: design of a choice experiment," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152153, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Buhari Abdulkarim & Mohd Rusli Yacob & Ahmad Makmom Abdullah & Alias Radam, 2017. "Households Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Watershed Services Attributes in North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest Malaysia," Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(1), pages 98-109, March.
    16. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    17. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    18. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C., 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in choice experiment questions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259179, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    20. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin & Boxall, Peter, 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in a choice experiment with an application to the Macquarie Marshes, AU," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252836, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    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:ukm:jlekon:v:52:y:2018:i:3:p:115-128. 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: Muhammad Asri Abd Ghani (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feukmmy.html .

    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.