<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Rose, John M.</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Masiero, Lorenzo</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2009-10-04</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">The importance of willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept  (WTA) measures in the evaluation of policy measures has led to a  constant stream of research examining survey methods and model  specifications seeking to capture and explain the concept of marginal  rates of substitution as much as possible. Stated choice experiments  pivoted around a reference alternative allow the specification of  discrete choice models to accommodate the prospect theory reference  dependence assumption. This permits an investigation of theories  related to loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity, and to test the  discrepancy between WTP and WTA, widely documented within the  literature. With more advanced classes of discrete choice models at our  disposal, it is now possible to test different preference specifications  that are better able to measure WTP and WTA values. One such model  allowing for utility to be directly specified in WTP space has recently  shown interesting qualities. This paper compares and contrasts models  estimated in preference space to those estimated in WTP space allowing  for asymmetry in the marginal utilities by estimating different parameters  according to reference, gain and loss values. The results suggest a  better model fit for the data estimated in WTP space, contradicting the  findings of previous researches. The parameter estimates report  significant evidence of loss aversion and diminishing sensitivities even  though the symmetric specification outperforms the asymmetric ones.  Finally, the analysis of the WTP and WTA measures confirms the higher  degree of WTA compared to WTP, and highlights the appeal of the WTP  space specification in terms of plausibility of the estimated measures.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>https://susi.usi.ch/global/documents/318212</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://n2t.net/ark:/12658/srd1318212</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://susi.usi.ch/documents/318212/files/wp1006.pdf</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/ark/12658/srd1318212</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>License undefined</dc:rights>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en">Choice experiments</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns2="xml" ns2:lang="en">Willingness to pay space</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns3="xml" ns3:lang="en">Preference asymmetry</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>info:eu-repo/classification/udc/33</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns4="xml" ns4:lang="en">A comparison of prospect theory in WTP and preference space</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_816b</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>