Abstract
Previous empirical research has demonstrated an internal inconsistency that may occur in response strategies between the first and second valuations made to closed-ended contingent valuation questions. One possible explanation for this bound effect is the surprise of being asked the second valuation question, which may be enhanced where there is a lack of trust. This paper considers the use of closed-ended contingent valuation to estimate non-market benefits for an improved street lighting scheme where there is a lack of trust in the agency responsible for provision. The results provide confirmation that surprise is an important determinant of bound effects; however, efforts to reduce such bias using a prior statement of the bid range were found to be ineffective in increasing trust and reducing surprise. Given the importance of this area of research, directions for future research are considered.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
