A Literature Review on Respondent Uncertainty in Stated Preference Studies
Abstract: Stated preference methods are the main tool for economic valuation of non-market goods and services. However, empirical evidence demonstrates that respondents are often uncertain when answering valuation questions. Respondent uncertainty is often considered as one of the main li-mitations of stated preferences methods, which has received far less attention in Chinese academe. Through a systematic review of the literature, this paper introduces the research achievement of respondent uncertainty in stated preference studies from the angles of causes, measuring methods and treatments. Finally, it points out the directions in future research.
文章引用: 王 佳 , 葛姣菊 (2015) 陈述性偏好法中受访者不确定性的研究综述。 现代市场营销， 5， 41-47. doi: 10.12677/MOM.2015.53006
Voelckner, F. (2006) An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 17, 137-149.
Adamowicz, W., Louviere J. and Williams, M. (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271-292.
 Ready, R.C., Champ, P.A. and Lawton, J.L. (2010) Using res-pondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Economics, 86, 363-381.
Voltaire, L., Pirrone, C. and Bailly, D. (2013) Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent wil-lingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach. Ecological Economics, 88, 76-85.
Li, C. and Mattson, L. (1995) Discrete choice under prefe-rence uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 256-269.
Akter, S., Bennett, J. and Akhter, S. (2008) Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 67, 345-351.
Akter, S., Brouwer, R. and Brander, L. (2009) Beukering P. V. Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets. Ecological Economics, 68, 1858-1863.
Loomis, J. and Ekstrand, E. (1998) Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: The case of the Mexican Spotted Owl. Ecological Economics, 27, 29-41.
Shaikh, S. L., Sun, L. and van Kooten, G.C. (2007) Treating respondent uncertainly in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments. Ecological Economics, 62, 115-125.
Martínez-Espiňeira, R. and Lyssenko, N. (2012) Alternative approaches to dealing with respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 93, 130-139.
 Hanley, N., Kriström, B. and Shogren, J.F. (2009) Coherent arbitrariness: On value uncertainty for environmental goods. Land Economics, 85, 41-50.
Champ, P.A. and Bishop, R.G. (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: An empirical study of hypothetical bias. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 19, 383-402.
Voltaire, L., Pirrone, C. and Bailly, D. (2013) Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach. Ecological Economics, 88, 76-85.
Alberini, A., Boyle, K. and Welsh, M. (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 40- 62.
Wang, H. (1997) Treatment of “don’t know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 219-232.
Spash, C.L. and Hanley, N. (1995) Preference, informa-tion and biodiversity preservation. Economics, 62, 115-125.
van Kooten, G.C., Krcmar, E. and Bulte, E. (2001) Prefe-rence uncertainty in non-market valuation: A fuzzy approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83, 487-500.
Petrolia, D.R. and Kim, T.G. (2011) Contingent valuation with heterogeneous reasons for uncertainty. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 515-526.
Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.G., Brown, T.C. and McCollum, D.W. (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value non-use benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 151-162.
 Norwood, F.B. (2005) Can calibration reconcile stated and observed preferences? Journal of Agricultural Applied Economics, 37, 237-248.
Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Blomuist, G.C., Liljas, B. and O’Conor, R.M. (1998) Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal, 65, 169-177.
 Moore, R., Bishop, R.C., Provencher, B. and Champ, P.A. (2010) Ac-counting for respondent uncertainty to improve willingness-to-pay estimates. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics, 58, 381-401.
Ready, R.C., Whitehead, J. and Blomquist, G. (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 181-197.
Blamey, R.K., Bennett, J.W. and Morrison, M.D. (1999) Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 75, 126-141.
Whitehead, J.C., Huang, J.C., Blogmquist, G.C. and Ready, R.C. (1998) Construct validity of dichotomous and polychotomous contingent valuation questions. Environment and Resource Economics, 11, 107-116.
Ready, R.C., Navrud, S. and Dubourg, W.R. (2001) How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions. Land Economics, 77, 315-326.
Akter, S. and Bennett, J. (2013) Preference uncertainty in stated preference studies: Facts and artefacts. Applied Economics, 45, 2107-2115.
 McFadden, D. (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualit-ative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P., Ed., Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York, 105-142.
Hanemann, W.M. (1984) Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments in discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, 1057-1061.
Sun, L. and van Kooten, G.C. (2009) Comparing fuzzy and probabilistic approaches to preference uncertainty in non- market valu-ation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, 471-489.
Wang, T., Venkates, R. and Chatterjee, R. (2007) Reservation price as a range: An incentive compatible measurement approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 200-213.
Chang, J., Yoo, S. and Kwak, S. (2007) An investigation of prefe-rence uncertainty in the contingent valuation study. Applied Economics Letter, 14, 691-695.
Blomquist, G.C., Blumenschein, K. and Johannesson, M. (2009) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: Comparison between Proba-bly/Definitely and a 10-point certainty scale. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43, 473-502.
Samnaliev, M., Stevens, T.H. and More, T. (2006) A compar-ison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 57, 507-519.