Hypothetical and Real Economic Commitments, and Social Status, in Valuing a Species Protection Programme
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2000, vol. 43, issue 4, 541-559
There has been a long-running debate on the reliability and validity of the contingent valuation method, connected with the hypotheticality of the situation when respondents are asked to state their willingness to pay (WTP) for species protection (the so-called 'hypothetical bias'). Additionally, a number of recent arguments regarding donations to good causes and the benefits of achieving social status have questioned the motives of respondents who have stated their WTP. An experiment at the University of Klagenfurt tested for hypothetical bias by asking participants to state their hypothetical and real WTP for a species protection programme in the Hohe Tauern national park. Hypothetical and real WTP differed significantly. Additionally, it emerged that the pure ecological motive for stating a WTP might be concealed by arguments about donating in order to achieve social status and contributing to a good cause.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:43:y:2000:i:4:p:541-559
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management is currently edited by Dr Neil Powe, Dr Ken Willis and George Bill Page
More articles in Journal of Environmental Planning and Management from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().