A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity¶
Tunçel, T., & Hammitt, J. K. (2014). A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Endowment Effect
- Behavioural-economics canon — the home turf: the classroom mug paradigm, the cleanest single test of prospect theory's loss-aversion kink at the reference point, sitting alongside the Allais and Ellsberg paradoxes. Contingent valuation and public economics — WTA-for-environmental-loss runs several times WTP-for-environmental-gain (a geometric-mean ratio of about 6:1 across environmental-goods studies), forcing every elicitation to declare which side of the gap it measured before entering cost-benefit analysis
This sourceA meta-analysis of 76 studies (337 experiments and surveys) with a geometric-mean WTA/WTP ratio of 3.28 over all goods, 6.23 for environmental goods and 1.63 for ordinary private goods, confirming Horowitz and McConnell's finding that the disparity is smaller for ordinary private goods than for public and non-market goods.
- Behavioural-economics canon — the home turf: the classroom mug paradigm, the cleanest single test of prospect theory's loss-aversion kink at the reference point, sitting alongside the Allais and Ellsberg paradoxes. Contingent valuation and public economics — WTA-for-environmental-loss runs several times WTP-for-environmental-gain (a geometric-mean ratio of about 6:1 across environmental-goods studies), forcing every elicitation to declare which side of the gap it measured before entering cost-benefit analysis
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:78807d86fb35 · see in the full table