Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 497–523 | Cite as

‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies

  • Giles Atkinson
  • Sian Morse-Jones
  • Susana Mourato
  • Allan Provins
Article

Abstract

We report the results of two field experiments to investigate the usefulness of entreaties in reducing protest zero responses in contingent valuation (CV) studies. These two experiments estimate willingness to pay for tropical biodiversity amongst distant beneficiaries and for reductions in water supply risks, respectively. The entreaties in both contexts, in essence, entailed an additional text to ‘talk people out of their protests’ using, respectively, a split sample test and a within sample test. Results indicate that, in both cases, these scripts were effective in significantly reducing protest zeros, with one experiment reducing protests at the payment principle stage of the valuation scenario and the other reducing protests at the payment elicitation stage. Using entreaties in this way tentatively may be a useful contribution to the existing CV literature where protests rates are high and, moreover, appear to ‘defy’ efforts to address the issue through best practice in the design and testing of survey instruments. However, while protests were reduced by about a third in both cases, the entreaties clearly did not eliminate a majority of protest zeros. Moreover, as we discuss, there are good reasons why the responses of ‘reclaimed’ protestors remain open to scrutiny.

Keywords

Contingent valuation Protest responses Entreaties 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2006) Cheap talk reconsidered: new evidence from CVM. J Econ Behav Organ 60: 562–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2003) Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. Am J Agric Econ 85(2): 492–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman IJ, Cole MA, Georgiou S, Hadley DJ (2006) Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: a case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. J Environ Manag 79: 221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Hanley N, Day BH, Hanemann M, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnichsen O, Ladenburg J (2009) Using an ex-ante entreaty to reduce zero bias in stated preference surveys—a health economics case. J Choice Model 2(2): 200–215Google Scholar
  6. Boyle KJ, Bergstrom JC (1999) Doubt, doubts and doubters: the genesis of a new research agenda?. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries.. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 183–206Google Scholar
  7. Boyle KJ, Holmes TP, Teisl MF, Roe B (2001) A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 83(2): 441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 46(2): 353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Balmford A (2004) Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. Bioscience 54(12): 1119–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bulte E, Gerking S, List JA, de Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated willingness-to-pay values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manage 49(2): 330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calia P, Strazzera E (2001) A sample selection model for protest responses in contingent valuation analyses. Statistica 61(3): 473–485Google Scholar
  12. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manage 17(3): 230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2005) Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett 89(2): 147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2006) Do experience and cheap talk influence willingness to pay in an open-ended contingent valuation survey? Working Paper No. 190, Department of Economics, Göteburg UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Carson RT (1998) Valuation of tropical rainforests: philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 24(1): 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  18. Haddad B, Howarth R (2006) Protest bids, commensurability, and substitution. In: Alberini A, Kahn A (eds) Handbook of contingent valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  19. Halstead JM, Luloff AE, Stevens TH (1992) Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeast J Agric Res Econ, pp 160–169Google Scholar
  20. Horton B, Colarullo G, Bateman IJ, Peres CA (2003) Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation programme in Amazonia: a Uk/Italian contingent valuation study. Environ Conserv 30(2): 139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (1996) Contingent valuation and endangered species. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  22. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14(1): 131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying fro stormwater pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33(2): 251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jorgensen BS, Wilson MA, Heberlein TA (2001) Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecol Econ 36(1): 133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kramer RA, Mercer DE (1997) Valuing a global environmental good: US residents’ willingness to pay to protect tropical rain forests. Land Econ 73(2): 196–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. List JA (2001) Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. Am Econ Rev 91(5): 1498–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lusk JL (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness to pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85(4): 840–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2009) Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ 85(3): 515–528Google Scholar
  29. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2006) Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecol Econ 57: 583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1984) A contingent valuation estimate of national freshwater benefits: technical report to the U.S. environmental protection agency. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrison MD, Blamey RK, Bennett JW (2000) Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resour Econ 16(4): 407–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy JJ, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?. Environ Resour Econ 30(3): 327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pearce DW (2007) Do we really care about biodiversity?. Environ Resour Econ 37(1): 313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poe GL, Clark JE, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 23(1): 105–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schlapfer F, Roschewitz A, Hanley N (2004) Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour. Ecol Econ 51(1–2): 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strazzera E, Genius M, Scarpa R, Hutchinson G (2003) The effect of protest votes on the estimates of willingness to pay for use values of recreational sites. Environ Resour Econ 25(4): 461–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strazzera E, Scarpa R, Calia P, Garrod G, Willis K (2003) Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuations surveys. Appl Econ 35: 133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Water Resources in the South East (WRSE) (2006) Report on the latest south east plan housing provision and distribution. Environment AgencyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giles Atkinson
    • 1
  • Sian Morse-Jones
    • 2
  • Susana Mourato
    • 1
  • Allan Provins
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environment and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the EnvironmentLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK
  2. 2.Ecosystem Services and Environmental MarketsFauna and Flora InternationalCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Economics for the Environment Consulting (eftec) Ltd.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations