1932

Abstract

Stated preference (SP) researchers have encountered an increasing number of policy problems for which a willingness-to-accept (WTA) compensation question would seem to be the most reasonable approach to structure the respondent's valuation choice task. However, most SP researchers are still reluctant to pose WTA questions to respondents due to concerns about reliability of responses and confusion about what contexts warrant a WTA question compared to a willingness-to-pay question. This review synthesizes the current literature, provides guidance on when and how to use WTA elicitation formats, and identifies research needs. We present a typology of valuation tasks that illustrates the situations in which WTA questions are appropriate and should be used to estimate welfare-theoretic measures of economic benefits—and when they should be avoided. We also discuss three different design issues that SP researchers need to consider when they use WTA questions: () elicitation of reference and status quo conditions, () incentive compatibility and private versus public goods, and () nonconforming responses. We conclude that good survey design makes it possible to ask respondents sensible WTA questions in many cases, yet several key research issues require attention.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-121416-125602
2017-10-05
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/9/1/annurev-resource-121416-125602.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-121416-125602&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adamowicz W, Dickie M, Gerking S, Veronesa M, Zinner D. 2014. Household decision-making and valuation of environmental health risks to parents and their children. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1:4481–591 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist 584601–14 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barton DN, Bergland O. 2010. Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an individual status quo modelling of farm specific water scarcity. Environ. Dev. Econ. 15:3321–40 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biel A, Johansson-Stenman O, Nilsson A. 2006. Emotions, morality, and public goods: the WTA–WTP disparity revisited Work. Pap. Econ. 193 Univ. Göteborg Swed.: [Google Scholar]
  5. Bush G, Hanley N, Moro M, Rondeau D. 2013. Measuring the local costs of conservation: a provision point mechanism for eliciting willingness to accept compensation. Land Econ 89:3490–513 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carson RT, Groves T. 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37:1181–210 [Google Scholar]
  7. Carson RT, Groves T. 2011. Incentive and information properties of preference questions: commentary and extensions. The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation J Bennett 300–21 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
  8. Carson RT, Groves T, List J. 2014. Consequentiality: a theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1:1171–207 [Google Scholar]
  9. Freeman AM, Herriges J, Kling CL. 2014. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods Baltimore, MD: Resour. Future [Google Scholar]
  10. Frey BS, Oberholzer-Gee F, Eichenberger R. 1996. The old lady visits your backyard: a tale of morals and markets. J. Polit. Econ. 104:61297–313 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hammitt J. 2013. Positive versus normative justifications for benefit-cost analysis. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7:2199–219 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hess S, Rose JM. 2009. Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently. Environ. Resour. Econ. 42:297–317 [Google Scholar]
  13. Horowitz J, McConnell K. 2002. A review of WTA/WTP studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44:426–47 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaczan D, Swallow B, Adamowicz W. 2013. Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: an assessment of payment approaches. Ecol. Econ. 95:20–30 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:2263–92 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kanjilal M, Jeffrey S, Adamowicz W. 2015. Spatial cost transfer: a case study in the Canadian prairies Work. Pap., Dep. Resour. Econ. Environ. Soc., Univ. Alta. Edmonton: [Google Scholar]
  17. Kim Y, Kling CL, Zhao J. 2015. Understanding behavioral explanations of the WTP–WTA divergence through a neoclassical lens: implications for environmental policy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 7:169–87 [Google Scholar]
  18. Knetsch JL. 2006. Benefits, costs, gains, and losses: choosing and using the appropriate measures Presented at Soc. Benefit Cost Anal. Conf., Univ. Wash. Seattle, Wash: http://depts.washington.edu/econlaw/pdf/Knetsch.pdf [Google Scholar]
  19. Knetsch JL. 2010. Values of gains and losses: reference states and choice of measure. Environ. Resour. Econ. 46:179–88 [Google Scholar]
  20. Knetsch JL, Mahasuweerachai P. 2015. WTP or WTA: determining the appropriate welfare measure when preferences are reference dependent Work. Pap., Econ. Environ. Partnersh. Southeast Asia Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: [Google Scholar]
  21. Knetsch JL, Riyanto YE, Zong J. 2012. Gain and loss domains and the choice of welfare measure of positive and negative changes. J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 3:41–18 [Google Scholar]
  22. Knetsch JL, Sinden JA. 1984. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Q. J. Econ. 99:3507–21 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kőszegi B, Rabin M. 2006. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 121:41133–65 [Google Scholar]
  24. Krishna VV, Drucker AG, Pascual U, Raghu PT, King EDIO. 2013. Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 87:110–23 [Google Scholar]
  25. Latacz-Lohmann U, Van der Hamsvoort C. 1997. Auctioning conservation contracts: a theoretical analysis and an application. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79:407–18 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levitt SD, List JA. 2007. What do laboratory experiments reveal about the real world. J. Econ. Perspect. 21:2153–73 [Google Scholar]
  27. List JA, Shogren JF. 2002. Calibration of willingness-to-accept. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 43:219–33 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lusk JL, McLaughlin L, Jaeger SR. 2007. Strategy and response to purchase intention questions. Mark. Lett. 18:1–231–44 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lusk JL, Shogren JF. 2007. Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Mansfield C, Van Houtven GL, Huber J. 2002. Compensating for public harms: why public goods are preferred to money. Land Econ 78:3368–89 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Moffitt R. 1983. An economic model of welfare stigma. Am. Econ. Rev. 73:51023–35 [Google Scholar]
  33. Plott CR, Zeiler K. 2005. The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect,” subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Am. Econ. Rev. 95:3530–45 [Google Scholar]
  34. Shyamsundar P, Kramer R. 1996. Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 31:129–44 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sugden R, Williams A. 1978. The Principles of Practical Cost-Benefit Analysis Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Tuncel T, Hammitt JK. 2014. A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 68:175–87 [Google Scholar]
  37. Villanueva AJ, Glenk K, Rodríguez-Entrena M. 2016. Serial non-participation and ecosystem services providers’ preferences towards incentive-based schemes Presented at Ann. Conf. Agric. Econ. Soc., Univ. Warwick UK: [Google Scholar]
  38. Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D. 2012. Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 4:4145–71 [Google Scholar]
  39. Whittington D, Adamowicz W. 2011. The use of hypothetical baselines in stated preference surveys Discuss. Pap. EFD DP 11–11 Environ. Dev. Göteborg, Swed.: [Google Scholar]
  40. Whittington D, Pagiola S. 2012. Using contingent valuation in the design of payments for environmental services mechanisms: a review and assessment. World Bank Res. Obs. 27:2261–87 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-121416-125602
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-121416-125602
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error