4.6 Article

Estimating discount rates for environmental goods: Are People's responses inadequate to frequency of payments?

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102446

关键词

Intertemporal preferences; Discount rate; Exponential discounting; Contingent valuation

资金

  1. ANID PIA/BASAL [FB0002]
  2. Millennium initiative [ICN 2019_015]
  3. [ANID/FONDAP/15110009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that allowing respondents to choose the payment schedule can significantly reduce the implicit discount rate. Additionally, when using all available information from valuation questions to bound the willingness to pay distribution, the highest reductions in discount rates were observed.
Most stated preference studies estimate discount rates using a split-sample approach. Each sample faces a different payment frequency (for instance, 1, 5, 10) together with a randomly assigned bid vector; both the frequency of payments and the bid are fixed for a specific individual. This paper evaluates whether allowing respondents to choose their preferred payment frequency affects the estimated discount rate. We use data from a contingent valuation survey of a network of marine reserves and estimate discount rates using both an exogenous and endogenous approach. The former calculates the mean of the willingness to pay (WTP) for each sample and then finds the discount rate that makes the present value of each payment frequency equivalent. The latter estimates the WTP and the discount rate jointly. Results show that allowing people to choose the payment schedule significantly reduces the implicit discount rate. We observed the highest reductions in discount rates when we used all the information available from the valuation questions to bound the WTP distribution. Our analysis suggests that the exogenous approach would not be recommended for testing the adequacy of people's responses to the frequency of payments. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据