Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour

This study reports the results from an in-person comparison of contingent valuation (CV) survey response and subsequent voting behaviour on comparable propositions to increase public spending for landscape protection. A substantial proportion of CV responses were not consistent with self-reported actual voting decisions, suggesting an upward bias of stated willingness to pay. Item non-response and protest zero bids were more frequently given by those rejecting than those approving the actual proposition. Self-reported actual decisions yielded a more consistent explanatory pattern than did hypothetical choices. The official aggregate voting records show that these results cannot be explained simply by errors in self-reported votes. We conclude that referenda provide a valuable opportunity to test stated preference methods for public goods, particularly public goods with significant passive-use values. However, an important requirement is that the stated choices to be compared with the referendum decisions, unlike in previous studies, come from independent contingent valuation surveys.

[1]  H. Bowen,et al.  The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources , 1943 .

[2]  N. Hanley,et al.  Is Cost–Benefit Analysis Anomaly-Proof? , 2005 .

[3]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  A Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs , 1997 .

[4]  J. Burgess,et al.  "I struggled with this money business”: Respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation , 2000 .

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

[6]  J. Shogren,et al.  Cvm‐X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets , 1998 .

[7]  Leonard A. Shabman,et al.  Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective , 1996 .

[8]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences , 2001 .

[9]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good , 1996 .

[10]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias , 2001 .

[11]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non‐Experimental Comparison , 1997 .

[12]  D. Rubinfeld.  Voting in a Local School Election: A Micro Analysis , 1977 .

[13]  K. Boyle,et al.  Doubt, Doubts, and Doubters: The Genesis of a New Research Agenda? , 2001 .

[14]  Hua Wang,et al.  Treatment of “Don't-Know” Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model , 1997 .

[15]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Information, uncertainty, and contingent valuation , 1999 .

[16]  Jon Strand,et al.  Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment , 1990 .

[17]  D. Krebs,et al.  New Directions in Attitude Measurement , 1993 .

[18]  K. A. Smith.  Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel''s , 1998 .

[19]  Carlos Alberto Brebbia,et al.  Ecosystems and Sustainable Development II , 1999 .

[20]  N. Hanley,et al.  Do Local Landscape Patterns Affect the Demand for Landscape Amenities Protection , 2003 .

[21]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[22]  Sylvia M. Tunstall,et al.  A Psychological Perspective , 2001 .

[23]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent , 1995 .

[24]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon , 2003 .

[25]  Clive L. Spash,et al.  Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity , 2002 .

[26]  Joseph E. Stiglitz,et al.  Economics of the Public Sector , 1986 .

[27]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum , 2003 .

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

[29]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment , 2001 .

[30]  D. Rubinfeld,et al.  Micro-Based Estimates of Demand Functions for Local School Expenditures , 1982 .

[31]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? , 1997, Journal of Political Economy.

[32]  Ilana Ritov,et al.  Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues , 1999 .

[33]  A. Roschewitz.  Der monetäre Wert der Kulturlandschaft , 1999 .

[34]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and developing Countries , 2001 .

[35]  D. Macmillan,et al.  A Field Experiment Involving Cash and Hypothetical Charitable Donations , 1999 .

[36]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods , 1995 .

[37]  P. Shapiro,et al.  Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda , 1975 .