Opposite impacts of policy and payment consequentiality treatments on willingness-to-pay in a contingent valuation study

IF 1.9 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Kei Kabaya
{"title":"Opposite impacts of policy and payment consequentiality treatments on willingness-to-pay in a contingent valuation study","authors":"Kei Kabaya","doi":"10.1080/21606544.2020.1816218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A growing number of studies investigated the effects of additional consequentiality scripts on respondents’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) and/or their beliefs in the survey arena. However, these works barely provide a clear distinction between policy and payment consequentiality, despite the possible varying effects of these two alternative beliefs. This study explored the impacts of additional policy and payment consequentiality scripts on respondents’ WTP and stated beliefs using a split-sample approach. Econometric analyses revealed that the policy and payment consequentiality scripts had significantly positive and negative impacts on respondents’ voting behaviours, respectively. Especially, the latter script was more influential than the former one. The payment consequentiality script was also found to be significantly effective in improving respondents’ stated payment consequentiality beliefs. These results suggest that emphasising payment consequentiality of a survey is important to encourage respondents to exhibit more careful attitudes towards a hypothetical scenario, thereby reducing some forms of bias in stated preference methods.","PeriodicalId":44903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"10 1","pages":"175 - 188"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21606544.2020.1816218","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2020.1816218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT A growing number of studies investigated the effects of additional consequentiality scripts on respondents’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) and/or their beliefs in the survey arena. However, these works barely provide a clear distinction between policy and payment consequentiality, despite the possible varying effects of these two alternative beliefs. This study explored the impacts of additional policy and payment consequentiality scripts on respondents’ WTP and stated beliefs using a split-sample approach. Econometric analyses revealed that the policy and payment consequentiality scripts had significantly positive and negative impacts on respondents’ voting behaviours, respectively. Especially, the latter script was more influential than the former one. The payment consequentiality script was also found to be significantly effective in improving respondents’ stated payment consequentiality beliefs. These results suggest that emphasising payment consequentiality of a survey is important to encourage respondents to exhibit more careful attitudes towards a hypothetical scenario, thereby reducing some forms of bias in stated preference methods.
条件评估研究中政策和支付后果处理对支付意愿的相反影响
摘要越来越多的研究调查了额外的后果性脚本对受访者支付意愿和/或他们在调查领域的信念的影响。然而,尽管这两种替代信念可能产生不同的影响,但这些工作几乎没有明确区分政策和支付后果。本研究采用分样本方法探讨了额外政策和支付后果脚本对受访者的WTP和陈述信念的影响。计量经济学分析显示,政策和支付后果脚本分别对受访者的投票行为产生了显著的积极和消极影响。尤其是后一个剧本比前一个更有影响力。支付后果性脚本也被发现在改善受访者陈述的支付后果性信念方面显著有效。这些结果表明,强调调查的支付后果性对于鼓励受访者对假设情景表现出更谨慎的态度很重要,从而减少既定偏好方法中的某些形式的偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信