Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
According to the constructed preference view, consumer willingness to pay is a context-sensitive construct; that is, a consumer's WTP for a product depends on the concrete decision context. For example, consumers tend to be willing to pay more for a soft drink in a luxury hotel resort in comparison to a beach bar or a local retail store.
The Becker–DeGroot–Marschak method (BDM), named after Gordon M. Becker, Morris H. DeGroot and Jacob Marschak for the 1964 Behavioral Science paper, "Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method" is an incentive-compatible procedure used in experimental economics to measure willingness to pay (WTP).
The aim of the method is to calculate willingness to pay for a constant price facility. The technique was first suggested by the statistician Harold Hotelling in a 1947 letter to the director of the National Park Service of the United States for a method to measure the benefit of National Parks to the public. [1]
The embedding effect is an issue in environmental economics and other branches of economics where researchers wish to identify the value of a specific public good using a contingent valuation or willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach. The problem arises because public goods belong to society as a whole, and are generally not traded in the market.
Contingent valuation surveys were first proposed in theory by S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup (1947) as a method for eliciting market valuation of a non-market good.The first practical application of the technique was in 1963 when Robert K. Davis used surveys to estimate the value hunters and tourists placed on a particular wilderness area.
This method shows an emphasis for cost recovery and profit maximisation which tends to result in lower prices in commodities and/or lower quality of goods. [3] This method can be utilized successfully by a business when the following circumstances exist: [6] The firm is a monopoly or has a capable level of control over the pricing market.
Then the willingness to accept is defined by (+,) = (,). [3] That is, the willingness to accept payment in order to put up with the adverse change equates the pre-change utility (on the right side) with the post-change utility, including compensation. In contrast, the willingness to pay is defined by
However, the finding that results estimated in "utility space" do not match those estimated in "willingness to pay space", [24] [25] suggests that the confound problem is not solved by this "trick": variances may be attribute specific or some other function of the variables (which would explain the discrepancy). This is a subject of current ...