Aadland, David and Anatchkova, Bistra and Grandjean, Burke and Shogren, Jason and Simon, Benjamin and Taylor, Patricia (2008): Valuing Access to U.S. Public Lands: A Unique Pricing Experiment.
Download (210kB) | Preview
We report the findings of a unique nation-wide experiment to price access to U.S. public lands. In 2004, the U.S. Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act mandated the creation of a new annual pass to cover all federal recreation sites that charge an entrance or access fee. Our task was to assist federal policymakers in determining an appropriate price for this new pass. Toward that end, we administered a national telephone survey to over 3,700 households and used contingent valuation to estimate households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the new pass at different prices. Our innovative experimental design allows us to estimate three distinct components of hypothetical bias in order to calibrate our WTP estimates against actual purchasing decisions. In a sample of the general U.S. population – most of whom have little experience with similar federal passes – respondents tend to greatly exaggerate their WTP for the pass when contrasted with previous pass sales. A sample of recent pass purchasers, however, exhibits little bias, confirming other recent research showing that market experience can mitigate hypothetical bias. Calibrated for bias, our results indicate that the $80 pass price ultimately adopted by policymakers implies an increase of nearly 2.5% in total revenue relative to the former pass, priced at $65, but a 4.5% loss in potential revenue absent any such pass.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Valuing Access to U.S. Public Lands: A Unique Pricing Experiment|
|Subjects:||Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics|
|Depositing User:||David Aadland|
|Date Deposited:||13. May 2008 04:28|
|Last Modified:||14. Feb 2013 03:52|
Aadland, D. and A. Caplan. 2003. “Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 492502.
American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2006. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. www.aapor.org/uploads/standarddefs_4.pdf.
Boyle, K. 2003. “Contingent valuation in practice,” in P. Champ, K. Boyle and T. Brown (editors), A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brown, T., P. Champ, and K. Boyle. Eds. 2003. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cameron, T.A. and M. James. 1987. “Efficient estimation methods for ‘close-ended’ contingent valuation surveys.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 269-276.
Champ, P., R. Bishop, T. Brown, and D. McCollum. (1997). “Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33(2), 151-162.
Cherry, T., T. Crocker, and J. Shogren. 2003. “Rationality spillovers” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 63-84.
Cherry, T. and J. Shogren. 2007. “Rationality crossovers.” Journal of Economics Psychology, 28, 261-277.
Cummings, R. and L. Taylor. 1999. “Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method.” American Economic Review, 89(3), 649-666.
Diamond, P. and J. Hausman. 1994. “Contingent valuation: Is some number better than none?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45 64.
Dixit, A. and R. Pindyck. 1994. Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Dorofeev, S. and P. Grant. Statistics for real-life sample surveys: Non-simple-random samples and weighted data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Fox, J., J. Shogren, D. Hayes, and J. Kliebenstein. (1998). “CVM-X: Calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(3), 455-465.
Greene, W. 2003. Econometric analysis. 5th Edition. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Hanemann, W., J. Loomis and B. Kanninen. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4), 1255-1263.
Harrison G. and E. Rutström. 2006. “Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods, in Handbook of results in experimental economics, eds. C. Plott and V.L. Smith. New York, Elsevier Science.
Herriges, J. and J. Shogren. 1996. “Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 112- 131.
List, J. and J. Shogren. 1998. “Calibration of the differences between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 37, 193-205.
List J. and C. Gallet. 2001. “What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241-254.
Murphy, J., P. Allen, T. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead. 2005. “A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 30(3), 313-325.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. Recreation fee program: Appendix K.” www.doi.gov/budget/2009/09Hilites/K001.pdf.
Whitehead, J. 2002. “Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions.” Land Economics, 78(2), 285-297.
Woolridge, J. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.