Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias

In this article, we estimate willingness to pay for curbside recycling. Using a unique data set, we also test for and detect significant hypothetical bias using stated- and revealed-preference data. A short-scripted “cheap-talk” statement is used to mitigate the bias and provide more efficient estimates of the welfare impacts of curbside recycling programs. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

[1]  VALUING ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS: A STATE OF THE ARTS ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Volume I.B Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1998 .

[2]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1987 .

[3]  J. Whitehead,et al.  Measuring Recreation Benefits of Quality Improvements with Revealed and Stated Behavior Data , 2000 .

[4]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Assessing a Kerbside Recycling Scheme: A Quantitative and Willingness to Pay Case Study , 1996 .

[5]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method , 1999 .

[6]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay , 1996 .

[7]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. , 1996 .

[8]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates , 1994 .

[9]  Leif Mattsson,et al.  Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. , 1995 .

[10]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models , 1995 .

[11]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models , 1995 .

[12]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods , 1992 .

[13]  Daniel L. Rubinfeld,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies : Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods , 1997 .

[14]  John A. List,et al.  Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards , 2001 .

[15]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Incentive and informational properties of preference questions , 2007 .

[16]  Arthur J. Caplan,et al.  Household Valuation of Curbside Recycling , 1999 .

[17]  J. Glenn,et al.  The state of garbage in America. Part II , 1998 .

[18]  D. Block,et al.  Sorting out the plastic. , 2000 .

[19]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Further Investigation of Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Fair Share, Time of Contribution, and Respondent Uncertainty , 2002 .

[20]  Nora Goldstein,et al.  The state of garbage in America. Part II , 2000 .

[21]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression' , 1988 .

[22]  Deborah Vaughn Nestor,et al.  Policy Evaluation with Combined Actual and Contingent Response Data , 1998 .

[23]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1987 .

[24]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[25]  Michele C. Marra,et al.  Estimating the Demand for a New Technology: Bt Cotton and Insecticide Policies , 2000 .

[26]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Social Choice , 1994 .

[27]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[28]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques , 1990 .

[29]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[30]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Willingness to pay for quality improvements: should revealed and stated preference data be combined? , 1997 .

[31]  Robert Steuteville,et al.  The state of garbage in America , 1995 .

[32]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions , 1997 .

[33]  Kelly H. Tiller,et al.  Household Willingness to Pay for Dropoff Recycling , 1997 .

[34]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[35]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation , 1994 .

[36]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods , 1997 .

[37]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach , 1998 .