A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum

被引:87
作者
Vossler, CA [1 ]
Kerkvliet, J
机构
[1] Cornell Univ, Dept Appl Econ & Management, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
[2] Oregon State Univ, Dept Econ, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA
关键词
contingent valuation; voting behavior; criterion validity; survey nonresponse;
D O I
10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00017-7
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This study pursues external validation of contingent valuation by comparing survey results with the voting outcome of a Corvallis, Oregon, referendum to fund a riverfront improvement project through increased property taxes. Survey respondents hypothetically make a voting decision-with no financial consequences-on the upcoming referendum. The survey sample consists of respondents verified to have voted in the election. We use available precinct-level election data to compare the proportion of "yes" survey and referendum votes as well as estimate voting models and mean willingness to pay (WTP) based on the two sets of data. We find that survey responses match the actual voting outcome and WTP estimates based on the two are not statistically different. Contrary to similar studies, our statistical results do not depend on re-coding the majority of "undecided" survey responses to "no." Furthermore, such a re-coding of responses may be inappropriate for our data set. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:631 / 649
页数:19
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation [J].
Berrens, RP ;
Bohara, AK ;
Kerkvliet, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1997, 79 (01) :252-266
[2]  
BERRENS RP, 1998, HUM DIMENS WILDL, V3, P11, DOI DOI 10.1080/10871209809359129
[3]   MEASURING VALUES OF EXTRA-MARKET GOODS - ARE INDIRECT MEASURES BIASED [J].
BISHOP, RC ;
HEBERLEIN, TA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1979, 61 (05) :926-930
[4]  
BISHOP RC, 1995, HDB ENV EC
[5]   Addressing negative willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation [J].
Bohara, AK ;
Kerkvliet, J ;
Berrens, RP .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2001, 20 (03) :173-195
[6]  
BROOKSHIRE DS, 1982, AM ECON REV, V72, P165
[7]   Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same? [J].
Cameron, TA ;
Poe, GL ;
Ethier, RG ;
Schulze, WD .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2002, 44 (03) :391-425
[8]   EFFICIENT ESTIMATION METHODS FOR CLOSED-ENDED CONTINGENT VALUATION SURVEYS [J].
CAMERON, TA ;
JAMES, MD .
REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, 1987, 69 (02) :269-276
[9]  
CAMERON TA, 1999, VALUING RECREATION E
[10]   Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods [J].
Carson, RT ;
Flores, NE ;
Martin, KM ;
Wright, JL .
LAND ECONOMICS, 1996, 72 (01) :80-99