Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation |
| |
Authors: | Bradley S Jorgensen Geoffrey J Syme Brian J Bishop Blair E Nancarrow |
| |
Institution: | (1) Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, CSIRO Land and Water, Wembley, 6014, Australia;(2) School of Psychology, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, 6102;(3) Present address: Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA; E-mail |
| |
Abstract: | A significant number of respondents to contingent valuation surveys tend to either state a zero bid, or refuse to state a bid at all, for reasons associated with the process of valuation. These protest responses are routinely removed from contingent valuation samples because it is assumed that they are not indicative of respondents true values. The censoring of protest responses has led to the emergence of a definitional controversy. One view is that the definition of protest responses and the rules for censoring them are dependent on whether the practitioner conceives of the contingent valuation survey as a market or as a referendum. However, what is not acknowledged is the possibility that protest responses and their meaning may vary according to the type of good being valued, the elicitation format, and the interaction between these elements and external factors. This potential renders the development of unambiguous rules for censoring protest responses difficult. Moreover, when willingness to pay is viewed as a behavioural intention, it becomes important to determine what the responses actually mean. This approach does not assume an interpretative position a priori against which the responses should be judged, but seeks to inform an existing understanding which is inadequate. |
| |
Keywords: | contingent valuation protest responses willingness to pay stormwater pollution |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|