Search

Copyright of Canadian Political Science Review is the property of Canadian Political Science Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: The extension of contingent valuation models with an attitude-behavior based framework has been proposed in order to improve the descriptive and predictive ability of the models. This study examines the potential of the theory of planned behavior to explain willingness to pay (WTP) in a contingent valuation survey of the recreational benefits of the Zurich city forests. Two aspects of WTP responses, protest votes and bid levels, were analyzed separately. In both steps, models with and without the psychological predictors proposed by the theory of planned behavior were compared. Whereas the inclusion of the psychological predictors significantly improved explanations of protest votes, their ability to improve the performance of the model explaining bid levels was limited. The results indicate that the interpretation of bid levels as behavioral intention may not be appropriate and that the potential of the theory of planned behavior to improve contingent valuation models depends on which aspect of WTP responses is examined. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In an original extension of contingent valuation methodology (CVM), support for a proposed environmental regulation is examined under three alternative polluter-pay specifications. Using a statewide random telephone sample of Washington State''s electorate, one scenario asks respondents for their support absent any CV price and absent any information regarding what producers will pay. A second scenario asks willingness to pay (WTP) providing only a CV price but no polluter-pay information. A third scenario asks respondents for their support giving both a CV price and a percentage of total costs producers will pay. Extending the CV methodology, this percentage varies randomly between respondents. Absent any price or firm cost sharing information, some respondents assume producers are absorbing the costs. Providing a CV price reverses this assumption, and reduces support even after controlling for price. When the CV price is given along with the percentage, WTP increases the larger the percentage. Within each scenario support also varies according to whether the type of industry being regulated is small and competitive, or monopolistic. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]