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

Schläpfer, F., Roschewitz, A. and Hanley, N. (2004) Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour. Ecological Economics, 51(1-2), pp. 1-16. (doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.04.006)

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.

Abstract

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.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Hanley, Professor Nicholas
Authors: Schläpfer, F., Roschewitz, A., and Hanley, N.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Biodiversity, One Health & Veterinary Medicine
Journal Name:Ecological Economics
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0921-8009
ISSN (Online):1873-6106
Published Online:02 November 2004

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record