An Examination of the Disparity Between Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay Using the Contingent Valuation Method: The Case of Red Kite Conservation in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the findings of a field experiment that explores the criterion validity of the contingent valuation (CV) method. The empirical experiment examined the disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay (WTP) bids for Red Kite conservation in Wales. Hypothetical WTP was elicited using an open‐ended CV instrument, while the actual WTP value was determined from actual donations to the Welsh Kite Trust—a charity set up to aid the conservation of Red Kites in Wales. The survey results indicate that hypothetical WTP was three times greater than the mean value of actual donations; this finding is consistent with a number of other criterion validity experiments. However, we also demonstrate equality of hypothetical and actual WTP among those who actually express a payment amount. Further investigations identify that an underlying cause of this disparity stems from the respondents of the CV survey overstating their intention of pay. This observation has potentially significant implication for CV design in that it suggests that the emphasis in design should be placed much more fully on initially determining whether people would actually pay at all . Le présent article présente les résultats d'une expérience sur le terrain qui a exploré la validité de critère de la méthode d'évaluation contingente (CV). L'expérience empirique a examiné l'écart entre la volonté de payer (VDP) hypothétique et réelle pour la conservation du milan royal dans le pays de Galles. La VDP hypothétique a été obtenue en utilisant un questionnaire ouvert pour effectuer l'évaluation contingente (CV), tandis que la valeur de la VDP réelle a été déterminée d'après les dons réels versés àThe Welsh Kite Trust, organisation caritative créée pour la conservation du milan royal au pays de Galles. Les résultats du sondage ont indiqué que la VDP hypothétique était trois fois supérieures à la valeur moyenne des dons réels; ce résultat rejoint ceux d'autres expériences sur la validité de critère. Cependant, nous avons aussi démontré une égalité entre la VDP hypothétique et réelle des personnes qui ont exprimé le montant du don. Des sondages ultérieurs ont montré qu'une des causes sous‐jacentes de cet écart venait du fait que les répondants avaient exagéré leur intention de payer. Cette observation a une implication potentielle importante pour la conception d'évaluation contingente puisqu'elle laisse supposer que l'accent mis sur la conception devrait plutôt être mis sur la détermination initiale de l'intention des personnes à payer ou non .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".