Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation:: evidence on the role of question framing

被引:43
作者
Ovaskainen, V
Kniivilä, M
机构
[1] Finnish Forest Res Inst, METLA, Helsinki, Finland
[2] Univ Joensuu, Fac Forestry, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland
关键词
altruism; benefit-cost analysis; conservation areas; contingent valuation; multiple preference orderings; referendum; spike model;
D O I
10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00309.x
中图分类号
F3 [农业经济];
学科分类号
0202 ; 020205 ; 1203 ;
摘要
Rather than individual consumer preferences, responses to referendum-style contingent valuation surveys on environmental goods may express citizen assessments that take into account benefits to others. We reconsider the consumer versus citizen hypothesis with a focus on the role of framing information. Survey data on conservation areas in Ilomantsi, Finland, are used. Different versions of the valuation question were used to encourage the respondents to take the consumer or the citizen role. The citizen version expectedly resulted in substantially fewer zero-WTP responses and protests and higher mean and median WTP, suggesting that the framing information has a major effect on the preferences expressed. The findings support the idea of multiple preferences. For a more confident interpretation of contingent valuation responses, future studies should recognise their intended use in survey design and gain information about respondents' motives to determine the presence and type of altruistic motives.
引用
收藏
页码:379 / 394
页数:16
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Information bias in contingent valuation: Effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation [J].
Ajzen, I ;
Brown, TC ;
Rosenthal, LH .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1996, 30 (01) :43-57
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1982, Selfishness, Altruism, and Rationality
[3]  
Arrow K., 1993, FED REGISTER, V58, P4601
[4]  
ARROW KJ, 1951, COWLES COMMISSION MO, V12
[5]   AN EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION FOR SAMPLING WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION [J].
AYER, M ;
BRUNK, HD ;
EWING, GM ;
REID, WT ;
SILVERMAN, E .
ANNALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, 1955, 26 (04) :641-647
[6]  
Bergstrom Theodore C., 1982, The Value of Life and Safety, P3
[7]   Respondents to contingent valuation surveys: Consumers or citizens? [J].
Blamey, R ;
Common, M ;
Quiggin, J .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1995, 39 (03) :263-288
[8]  
Blamey R. K., 1996, Forestry, economics and the environment., P103
[9]   Modelling winners and losers in contingent valuation of public goods: Appropriate welfare measures and econometric analysis [J].
Clinch, JP ;
Murphy, A .
ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 2001, 111 (470) :420-443
[10]   The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey [J].
Curtis, JA ;
McConnell, KE .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2002, 46 (01) :69-83