HeDuprasNdefoEtAl2020
Référence
He, J., Dupras, J., Ndefo, F., Poder, T. (2020) Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects? Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 13(1):11-36. (Scopus 
)
Résumé
We conducted a field stated preferences survey to understand the influence of payment and provision consequentiality script on valuation associated with voluntary contribution. Based on four treatment groups with single or combined consequentiality scripts and a contingent-ranking willingness to pay question, this paper provided some evidence that at least for some attributes, a respondent facing positive provision probability reported a significantly higher preference for the opt-in projects if and only if the payment consequentiality was co-presented. For the payment consequentiality, its impact on valuation was independent of the presence of provision consequentiality. We also discussed the limits of our study and provided suggestions for future research in this line. © 2020, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Format EndNote
Vous pouvez importer cette référence dans EndNote.
Format BibTeX-CSV
Vous pouvez importer cette référence en format BibTeX-CSV.
Format BibTeX
Vous pouvez copier l'entrée BibTeX de cette référence ci-bas, ou l'importer directement dans un logiciel tel que JabRef .
@ARTICLE { HeDuprasNdefoEtAl2020,
AUTHOR = { He, J. and Dupras, J. and Ndefo, F. and Poder, T. },
JOURNAL = { Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences },
TITLE = { Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects? },
YEAR = { 2020 },
NOTE = { cited By 0 },
NUMBER = { 1 },
PAGES = { 11-36 },
VOLUME = { 13 },
ABSTRACT = { We conducted a field stated preferences survey to understand the influence of payment and provision consequentiality script on valuation associated with voluntary contribution. Based on four treatment groups with single or combined consequentiality scripts and a contingent-ranking willingness to pay question, this paper provided some evidence that at least for some attributes, a respondent facing positive provision probability reported a significantly higher preference for the opt-in projects if and only if the payment consequentiality was co-presented. For the payment consequentiality, its impact on valuation was independent of the presence of provision consequentiality. We also discussed the limits of our study and provided suggestions for future research in this line. © 2020, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. },
AFFILIATION = { Département d’Économique, École de Gestion, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 boulevard de l’Université, Sherbrooke, QC J1K2R1, Canada; Département des sciences naturelles, l’Institut des sciences de la forêt tempérée (ISFORT), Université du Québec à Outaouais, Ripon, Canada; École de santé publique - Département de gestion, d’évaluation et de politique de santé, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada },
AUTHOR_KEYWORDS = { Contingent ranking; Ecosystem services valuation; Hypothetical bias; Payment consequentiality; Provision consequentiality; Voluntary donation },
DOCUMENT_TYPE = { Article },
DOI = { 10.1007/s12076-020-00242-5 },
SOURCE = { Scopus },
URL = { https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85077976015&doi=10.1007%2fs12076-020-00242-5&partnerID=40&md5=d4076a776fa58c128dc04b6f652f59cd },
}
