Using Experimental Methods In Environmental And Resource Economics List Ja Ed
Using Experimental Methods In Environmental And Resource Economics List Ja Ed
Using Experimental Methods In Environmental And Resource Economics List Ja Ed
Using Experimental Methods In Environmental And Resource Economics List Ja Ed
1. Using Experimental Methods In Environmental And
Resource Economics List Ja Ed download
https://ebookbell.com/product/using-experimental-methods-in-
environmental-and-resource-economics-list-ja-ed-1561138
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Crash Test Girl An Unlikely Experiment In Using The Scientific Method
To Answer Lifes Toughest Questions Kari Byron
https://ebookbell.com/product/crash-test-girl-an-unlikely-experiment-
in-using-the-scientific-method-to-answer-lifes-toughest-questions-
kari-byron-48756678
Bayesian Statistics For Experimental Scientists A General Introduction
Using Distributionfree Methods Richard A Chechile
https://ebookbell.com/product/bayesian-statistics-for-experimental-
scientists-a-general-introduction-using-distributionfree-methods-
richard-a-chechile-12199490
Rsm Simplified Optimizing Processes Using Response Surface Methods For
Design Of Experiments Second Edition 2nd Edition Mark J Anderson
https://ebookbell.com/product/rsm-simplified-optimizing-processes-
using-response-surface-methods-for-design-of-experiments-second-
edition-2nd-edition-mark-j-anderson-5744788
Estimation Of Structural Models Using Experimental Data From The Lab
And The Field Charles Bellemare
https://ebookbell.com/product/estimation-of-structural-models-using-
experimental-data-from-the-lab-and-the-field-charles-
bellemare-54535254
3. Geohazards And Pipelines Stateoftheart Design Using Experimental
Numerical And Analytical Methodologies Spyros A Karamanos
https://ebookbell.com/product/geohazards-and-pipelines-stateoftheart-
design-using-experimental-numerical-and-analytical-methodologies-
spyros-a-karamanos-12296132
Validation Of Fast Reactor Thermomechanical And Thermohydraulic Codes
Final Report Of A Coordinated Research Project 19961999 A Rineiskii A
Stanculescu International Atomic Energy Agency Harmonization And
Validation Of Fast Reactor Thermomechanical And Thermo Hydraulic Codes
And Relations Using Experimental Data
https://ebookbell.com/product/validation-of-fast-reactor-
thermomechanical-and-thermohydraulic-codes-final-report-of-a-
coordinated-research-project-19961999-a-rineiskii-a-stanculescu-
international-atomic-energy-agency-harmonization-and-validation-of-
fast-reactor-thermomechanical-and-thermo-hydraulic-codes-and-
relations-using-experimental-data-4122650
Experimental Designs Using Anova Computerassisted Research Design And
Analysis Barbara G Tabachnick
https://ebookbell.com/product/experimental-designs-using-anova-
computerassisted-research-design-and-analysis-barbara-g-
tabachnick-45447214
Artificial Intelligence For Scientific Discoveries Extracting Physical
Concepts From Experimental Data Using Deep Learning Raban Iten
https://ebookbell.com/product/artificial-intelligence-for-scientific-
discoveries-extracting-physical-concepts-from-experimental-data-using-
deep-learning-raban-iten-49478558
Using Eye Movements As An Experimental Probe Of Brain Function A
Symposium In Honor Of Jean Bttnerennever 1st Edition Christopher
Kennard And R John Leigh Eds
https://ebookbell.com/product/using-eye-movements-as-an-experimental-
probe-of-brain-function-a-symposium-in-honor-of-jean-
bttnerennever-1st-edition-christopher-kennard-and-r-john-leigh-
eds-1707854
7. NEW HORIZONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS
Series Editors: Wallace E. Oates, Professor of Economics, University of Maryland,
USA and Henk Folmer, Professor of General Economics, Wageningen
University and Professor of Environmental Economics, Tilburg University,
The Netherlands
This important series is designed to make a significant contribution to the
development of the principles and practices of environmental economics. It
includes both theoretical and empirical work. International in scope, it addresses
issues of current and future concern in both East and West and in developed and
developing countries.
The main purpose of the series is to create a forum for the publication of high
quality work and to show how economic analysis can make a contribution to
understanding and resolving the environmental problems confronting the world in
the twenty-first century.
Recent titles in the series include:
Managing Wetlands for Private and Social Good
Theory, Policy and Cases from Australia
Stuart M. Whitten and Jeff Bennett
Amenities and Rural Development
Theory, Methods and Public Policy
Edited by Gary Paul Green, Steven C. Deller and David W. Marcouiller
The Evolution of Markets for Water
Theory and Practice in Australia
Edited by Jeff Bennett
Integrated Assessment and Management of Public Resources
Edited by Joseph C. Cooper, Federico Perali and Marcella Veronesi
Climate Change and the Economics of the World’s Fisheries
Examples of Small Pelagic Stocks
Edited by Rögnvaldur Hannesson, Manuel Barange and Samuel F. Herrick Jr
The Theory and Practice of Environmental and Resource Economics
Edited by Thomas Aronsson, Roger Axelsson and Runar Brännlund
The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics
2006/2007
A Survey of Current Issues
Edited by Tom Tietenberg and Henk Folmer
Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values
Edited by John Rolfe and Jeff Bennett
The Impact of Climate Change on Regional Systems
A Comprehensive Analysis of California
Edited by Joel Smith and Robert Mendelsohn
Explorations in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics
Essays in Honor of Gardner M. Brown, Jr.
Edited by Robert Halvorsen and David Layton
Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics
Edited by John A. List
8. Using Experimental
Methods in
Environmental and
Resource Economics
Edited by
John A. List
Professor of Economics, University of Chicago, USA
Research Associate, NBER and University Fellow, RFF, USA
NEW HORIZONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS
Edward Elgar
Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA
10. This book is dedicated to:
Jennifer, Annika, Eli, Noah, Greta and Mason
12. Contents
List of contributors viii
Introduction x
1 Anchoring and yea-saying with private goods:
an experiment 1
Ian Bateman, Alistair Munro, Bruce Rhodes,
Chris V. Starmer and Robert Sugden
2 Market price endogeneity and accuracy of value
elicitation mechanisms 20
Jayson L. Lusk and Matthew Rousu
3 Hypothetical bias over uncertain outcomes 41
Glenn W. Harrison
4 The use of a real-money experiment in a stated-preference
survey 70
John Horowitz
5 Mechanisms for addressing third-party impacts resulting
from voluntary water transfers 91
James J. Murphy, Ariel Dinar, Richard E. Howitt,
Erin Mastrangelo, Stephen J. Rassenti and Vernon L. Smith
6 Peer enforcement in CPR experiments: the relative
effectiveness of sanctions and transfer rewards, and the
role of behavioural types 113
Daan van Soest and Jana Vyrastekova
7 Experimental approaches to understanding inter-cultural
conflict over resources 137
Paul J. Ferraro and Ronald G. Cummings
8 Behavioural economics and the valuation of non-marketed
goods and services: the lab, the behavioural anomalies
and the policy-maker 161
Wiktor Adamowicz, Jonathan E. Alevy and John A. List
Index 179
vii
13. Contributors
Wiktor Adamowicz, Department of Rural Economy, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Jonathan E. Alevy, Department of Resource Economics, University of
Nevada, Reno, NV, USA.
Ian Bateman, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Ronald G. Cummings, Department of Economics, Andrew Young School
of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Georgia, USA.
Ariel Dinar, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Paul J. Ferraro, Department of Economics, Andrew Young School of
Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Georgia, USA.
Glenn W. Harrison, Department of Economics, College of Business
Administration, University of Central Florida, USA.
John Horowitz, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
University of Maryland, USA.
Richard E. Howitt, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
University of California, Davis, USA.
John A. List, Department of Economics, University of Chicago, National
Bureau of Economic Research, Chicago, USA.
Jayson L. Lusk, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, USA.
Erin Mastrangelo, Department of Resource Economics, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.
Alistair Munro, Department of Economics, Royal Holloway, University of
London, Egham, UK.
James J. Murphy, Department of Resource Economics and Center for
Policy and Administration, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.
viii
14. Stephen J. Rassenti, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, George
Mason University, Fairfax, USA.
Bruce Rhodes, Department of Economics, University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Durban, South Africa.
Matthew Rousu, Department of Economics, Susquehanna University,
Selinsgrove, USA.
Vernon L. Smith, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, George
Mason University, Fairfax, USA.
Chris V. Starmer, Department of Economics, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK.
Robert Sugden, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich,
UK.
Daan van Soest, Department of Economics and CentER, Tilburg
University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Jana Vyrastekova, Department of Economics and CentER, University of
Tilburg, Tilburg, and Center for Research in Experimental Economics and
Political Decision-Making, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
Contributors ix
15. Introduction
This book includes a collection of research that makes use of the experi-
mental method to explore important issues in environmental and
resource economics. My goal in choosing these studies was to attract a
group of premier scholars who would provide cutting-edge research in
some of the most important areas in environmental and resource eco-
nomics. I believe this book was able to accomplish this task.
The early chapters in the book, Chapters 1–4, focus on improving
benefit–cost analysis, which remains the hallmark of public policy
decision-making around the globe. For example, currently contingent
valuation (CV) is the only game in town to provide both use and non-
use values of non-marketed goods and services. Recognizing this, in the
USA, the Office of Management and Budget has recently confirmed the
use of CV in their revision of the benefit–cost guidelines, which every
federal agency must follow when performing a formal benefit–cost
analysis. The research in Chapters 1–4 provides innovative avenues to
credibly lead to more efficient policies. These insights should prove to be
fundamental components of the valuation process.
In the latter chapters, 5–8, the authors explore, in a myriad of clever
ways, important aspects associated with optimal resource use and regu-
lation of resources. Clearly these issues remain of utmost importance,
both in a positive and normative sense, and this lot of studies should
also aid in the policy-making process. From my discussion with agency
officials, it is clear that resource issues will soon represent some of the
most important policy issues of the day. In this spirit, Chapters 5–8
provide a good introduction to some of those problems and represent
logical solutions. The ultimate chapter is an overview that includes a dis-
cussion of behavioural economics and non-market valuation.
In closing, I would like to sincerely thank this fine set of authors for
participating in this endeavour. Each chapter in this volume was peer
reviewed and the authors in many cases made extensive revisions to
improve their work. For this I am most appreciative. I had great plea-
sure working with each author on this project. I also thank the anony-
mous reviewers who spent a considerably amount of time and effort to
lend insights that significantly improved the work herein. While your
work is rarely lauded and you are truly ‘behind the scenes’, without your
x
16. contributions this work would not have been able to rise to its current
level.
John A. List
University of Chicago
NBER
Introduction xi
18. 1. Anchoring and yea-saying with
private goods: an experiment
Ian Bateman, Alistair Munro, Bruce Rhodes,
Chris V. Starmer and Robert Sugden
INTRODUCTION1
Elicitation effects in contingent valuation methodology (CVM) are said to
occur when responses gathered from subjects are sensitive to the method of
elicitation in a manner inconsistent with standard, Hicksian consumer
theory. Two widely reported elicitation effects are starting point effects and
yea-saying. Starting point effects (SPE) occur when reported valuations are
correlated with some initial valuation cue, such as the bid value in dichot-
omous choice (DC) questions. Yea-saying describes the phenomenon of a
subject agreeing to a proposal in the form of a direct question that she or
he would reject under other conditions. For instance, a subject may agree
to a bid price in a dichotomous choice format but then provide a lower
stated valuation in a subsequent valuation exercise. A key difference
between the two elicitation effects is that yea-saying is a unidirectional
phenomenon, that is, it raises willingness-to-pay or reduces willingness-to-
accept, whereas starting point bias can work in either direction depending
on the value of the cue.
This chapter reports on an experiment designed to test for both types of
elicitation effect within the context of a real market for two private goods
in an incentive-compatible setting. One aim of the experiment is to examine
the robustness of such effects; specifically, do they occur when subjects
must make real rather than hypothetical choices and when the objects of
choice are private rather than public goods? The second aim of the experi-
ment is to distinguish between the two effects.
BACKGROUND
In the context of valuation, anchoring occurs when an individual’s reported
or revealed valuation is correlated with some prior numerical cue. Since its
1
19. preliminary identification by Slovic and Lictenstein (1971), manifestations
of anchoring have been identified in numerous and diverse settings, includ-
ing the guessing of answers to multiplication problems and estimating the
number of African countries in the United Nations (Kahneman et al.,
1982). In these sorts of problems, subjects have the seemingly simple task
of saying whether the true answer is above or below some initial suggested
answer that has been offered by the organizer. A particularly stark example
of anchoring can be found in the recent work of Ariely et al. (2003), who
asked subjects for the final two digits of their US social security number
and found that it was closely correlated with individuals’ subsequent valu-
ations of a variety of unfamiliar goods.
In the popular iterative bidding format of CVM, subjects are offered a
controlled sequence of opportunities to give information about their valu-
ation of a good. For instance, the experimenter may ask the subject if they
are willing to pay x (the ‘starting point’) for an improvement in a public
good and then, in a follow-up question, ask the subject to state a maximum
willingness-to-pay. Intended as an improvement upon the open-ended (OE)
format, the iterative bidding CVM revealed that final open-ended valu-
ations were often correlated with the initial value of x – hence the term,
starting point effect (Bateman et al., 1995; Boyle and Bishop, 1985; Boyle
and Bishop, 1988; Brookshire et al., 1982; Cameron and Quiggin, 1994;
Herriges and Shogren, 1996; Kealy et al., 1988; Rowe et al., 1980; Schulze
et al., 1981).
Anchoring is one possible reason for SPE, with the anchor provided by
the initial value of x offered to subjects. The initial bid value might act as a
clue or hint regarding the good’s value, especially when respondents are
confused or unfamiliar with the good concerned (Bishop et al., 1983;
Brookshire et al., 1982; Brown et al., 1996; Kealy and Turner 1993;
McFadden, 1994). Since the domain of CVM largely involves the valuation
of unfamiliar, non-marketed goods, this starting point problem has become
recognized as a potentially serious flaw inherent in iterative bidding tech-
niques (Boyle and Bishop, 1985, p. 193).
The DC protocol offers an alternative to bidding games. It has been sug-
gested that this approach might simulate a more market-like setting, since
it involves a simple accept–reject bid decision. The increased simplicity
might help subjects to feel more comfortable answering a CVM valuation
question (Seller et al., 1985). Furthermore, CVM surveys are typically
limited by time, information, interaction, consultation and market experi-
ence, all of which may cause subjects to become rather uncertain about
their responses. If subjects only have to think whether their true value is
above or below some suggested amount, the whole valuation process may
be simplified (Bishop et al., 1983). Comparisons between OE and DC
2 Using experimental methods in environmental and resource economics
20. formats have shown that OE mean and median estimates of willingness-to-
pay (WTP) are consistently lower than the DC estimated means (Bateman
et al., 1995; Bishop et al., 1983; Boyle et al., 1996; Brown et al., 1996;
Cummings et al., 1995; Ready et al., 1996; Seller et al., 1985). One view is
that these results demonstrate that OE questioning is typically subject to
strategic behaviour. This serves to confirm strong priors of free-riding
incentives in the public good context. A second explanation is that just as
in iterative bidding processes, anchoring may occur in the DC format.
An alternative explanation of these results is however offered by yea-
saying. This phenomena is documented in the existing psychology liter-
ature (Arndt and Crane, 1975; Crouch and Keniston, 1960), and is also
becoming an issue of growing concern in the economics CVM literature
(Brown et al., 1996; Kanninen, 1995; Kriström, 1993) as a possible influ-
ence on DC responses.
Brown et al. (1996) proposed that the simplicity of the take-it-or-leave-it
choice might generate a conflicting objective in response. Torn between
answering truthfully and showing a positive preference, if a DC bid is above
her/his maximum WTP, a subject may still respond positively because
she/he would like to demonstrate a positive preference for the good in
question. In addition to this we might include the notion of the ‘good
respondent’ (Orne, 1962). Orne described how subjects, when faced with
officialdom, might respond positively to questions, only because they
wrongly believe that such a response is exactly what the interviewer (in a
position of perceived authority) wishes to hear.
Although some results can be interpreted as evidence for yea-saying,
some caution is warranted. Point estimates from DC data which are used
to compare with moments from open-ended data, have been found to be
rather dependent upon the original specification of the bid function, and
the Hanemann (1984) specifications have not been wholly supported
(Cooper and Loomis, 1992). Given that many of the previous studies cited
above compare OE with DC estimates based upon these functional
specifications, it would be unwise to place too much emphasis on these
studies as evidence of yea-saying.
Another approach, thereby avoiding the functional form problem
entirely, is to test using synthetic data-sets or implicit preferences. The syn-
thetic DC responses are constructed by allocating a ‘yes’if an OE valuation
is greater than or equal to those bids used in the actual DC questioning.
Differences between actual and implicit responses can then be tested.
Studies which have previously used these ‘synthetic’ data-sets have revealed
evidence to support the yea-saying tendency (Bateman et al., 1995; Boyle
et al., 1996; Holmes and Kramer, 1995; Kriström 1993; Ready et al., 1996).
The studies cited produce evidence based on stated preference exercises
Anchoring and yea-saying with private goods 3
21. with hypothetical goods. It is not clear whether the results can be replicated
with individuals making real choices about real goods, hence the value of a
controlled experiment.
Perhaps the closest investigation to ours is that reported in Frykblom and
Shogren (2000) who use real choices and a split-sample design to value an
environmental economics text using 108 Swedish university students. One
group of students faced a Vickrey auction while the rest faced dichotomous
choice questions with various bid levels. The authors argue that both yea-
saying and anchoring will increase the acceptance of the proposal at high
bid levels, while the two effects work in opposite directions for low bid levels.
Hence it is possible to test between the impact of these two effects by com-
paring the distribution of values derived from the Vickrey auction with the
upper and lower parts of the distribution derived from the DC exercise. In
our experiment we have a larger sample size, two goods of different famil-
iarity rather than one, and we use a Becker-de Groot-Marschak (BDM)
mechanism rather than the Vickrey auction. However, the major difference
is that for some subjects, after the DC questions we also have follow-up open-
ended (OE) valuation questions. If only anchoring occurs, the values derived
from open-ended questions should be consistent with the values from the
DC questions, but if only yea-saying is present then the distribution of
values derived from the OE questions should be independent of the bid level
in the DC question and equal to the distribution obtained from subjects who
face an open-ended question without a prior DC question. This provides a
clear-cut means of distinguishing between anchoring and yea-saying. As we
shall see, despite the differences in design between the two experiments, we
obtain broadly the same results: there is little evidence of anchoring, but the
data shows large-scale yea-saying in the responses of the subjects.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Consider an agents’ valuation of a unit increase in the level of a private
good. Let wtp(v) be the maximum willingness-to-pay for the increase when
the subject receives a prior exposure to the anchor value v and let wtp be
the maximum willingness-to-pay when the subject faces no such anchor.
For willingness-to-pay, an anchoring effect occurs if,
wtp(v)wtp vwtp
wtp(v)wtp vwtp.
Let P(x) be the proportion of the population whose wtp exceeds x in the
absence of a common anchor and let P(x/v) be the proportion whose wtp
4 Using experimental methods in environmental and resource economics
22. exceeds x when each subject is exposed to the anchor value v. If anchoring
occurs then,
P(x/v)P(x) xv
P(x/v)P(x) xv
It follows that,
Median wtp(v)median wtp vmedian wtp
Median wtp(v)median wtp vmedian wtp.
Figure 1.1 illustrates these relationships for the case where vmedian
wtp.
Meanwhile, let (x) be the proportion of the population who agree that
they are willing to pay at least x. Yea-saying occurs when,
(x)P(x).
For decreases in the level of the good, we can define similar notions. Let
wta(v) be the minimum willingness-to-accept compensation for a unit
decrease in the private good when the subject receives a prior exposure to
Anchoring and yea-saying with private goods 5
Figure 1.1 The effect of a starting point, with anchoring
v
P(x)
P(x|v)
WTP
0
Cumulative proportion
0.5
No starting point
With starting point, v
23. the anchor value v and let wta be the minimum willingness-to-accept in the
absence of such anchor. An anchoring effect occurs if,
wta(v)wta vwta
wta(v)wta vwta
Let R(x) be the proportion of the population whose wta exceeds x in the
absence of a common anchor and let R(x/v) be the proportion whose wta
exceeds x when each subject is exposed to the anchor value v. If anchoring
occurs then,
R(x/v)R(x) xv
R(x/v)R(x) xv
Meanwhile, let 1(x) be the proportion of the population who agree
that they are willing to accept x. Yea-saying occurs when,
1(x)1R(x) or R(x)(x).
Table 1.1 summarizes the predictions for anchoring and yea-saying as a
whole.
The basic design of the experiment follows from these definitions. In the
first treatment, valuations are elicited from subjects who receive no
common anchor.2 In the second treatment, subjects face two related ques-
tions, with the second immediately following the first. The first involves a
choice where an anchoring value is provided (for example, are you willing
to pay v?). In the second, valuations are elicited in a format identical to that
used in the first treatment.
6 Using experimental methods in environmental and resource economics
Table 1.1 Summary of predictions
WTP WTA
xv vx xv vx
Hicksian P(x|v)P(x) P(x|v)P(x) R(x|v)R(x) R(x|v)R(x)
P(x)(x) P(x)(x) R(x)(x) R(x)(x)
Anchoring and P(x)P(x|v) P(x)P(x|v) R(x)R(x|v) R(x)R(x|v)
yea-saying P(x)(x) P(x)(x) R(x)(x) R(x)(x)
Anchoring, P(x)P(x|v) P(x)P(x|v) R(x)R(x|v) R(x)R(x|v)
no yea-saying P(x)(x) P(x)(x) R(x)(x) R(x)(x)
Yea-saying, P(x|v)P(x) P(x|v)P(x) R(x)R(x|v) R(x)R(x|v)
no anchoring P(x)(x) P(x)(x) R(x)(x) R(x)(x)
24. Experimental Details3
The goods
We used two private goods (a bottle of Cava semi-sparkling wine and a box
of 240 tea bags). As noted earlier, the results of previous studies (for
example, Kealy et al., 1993) have shown that if a subject has a high degree
of familiarity with the good in question, the incidence of biases such as
starting point and yea-saying could be significantly reduced. In this case,
the intention was to select goods that encouraged some variance in famil-
iarity and characteristics. Tea bags (a staple of British culture) were felt to
be the most well-known and the most regularly consumed, relative to the
sparkling wine. Thus subjects would be more certain of their preferences
and find it easier to formulate an OE value for the more familiar good (tea-
bags as opposed to wine) and hence less vulnerable to the influence of yea-
saying and starting point effects when familiarity is high. Subjects are more
likely to be influenced by suggested bid levels if they have not previously
thought about their preferences for a good (such as the Cava wine) and,
being less certain of their preferences, they may be more liable to certain
stochastic variation and error.
The questions
By analogy with CVM, in what follows we shall label choice questions
as ‘DC’ and label the questions where subjects had to fill in valuations as
‘OE’.
Each task was described by a display on a visual display unit (VDU)
screen. At the top of the screen were the words, ‘If this question is selected,
you will be given . . .’ followed by a specific endowment of money only, for
example, ‘£6’ or an endowment of a single unit quantity of one of the
goods, for example, ‘A bottle of wine’. The next line of text read, ‘In add-
ition to this, you will be required to accept either A or B’.
The letters (the pairs varied) labelled alternative options where the first
option described possible transfers of money, or the good, from the
subject to the experimenter (‘You give us’) or from the experimenter to
the subject (‘We give you’). The second option was fully described in both
elicitation formats but the first option varied according to the format
being used. For a DC question, the first option involved a pre-specified
amount as one of the high or low bids. The subject was asked to
select which option they preferred, for example, for a DC WTP for wine
question:
A: You give us £3 and we give you a bottle of wine.
B: No change.
Anchoring and yea-saying with private goods 7
26. remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
27. small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where
we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
28. Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
29. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com