Following Carson and Groves’s theoretical framework on incentive compatibility in stated preference surveys, we apply the contingent valuation method with a single-bounded dichotomous referendum-style choice question to estimate the willingness to pay to host a Formula One Grand Prix in Copenhagen, Denmark. Based on a sample of 2,268 respondents answering a web-based questionnaire distributed to a random sample of individuals living in Copenhagen through the Danish public digital post system, we find an annual aggregate welfare improvement in the range of €7.36–13.82 million among the 320,825 households in Copenhagen Municipality, with €9.70 million as our central estimate, not considering potential negative welfare changes from hosting.
AizakiH.NakataniT.SatoK.FogartyJ. (2022). R package DCchoice for dichotomous choice contingent valuation: A contribution to open scientific software and its impact. Japanese Journal of Statistics and Data Science, 5(2), 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42081-022-00171-1
2.
AnderssonT. D.RustadA.SolbergH. A. (2004). Local residents’ monetary evaluation of sports events. Managing Leisure, 9(3), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360671042000273873
3.
AtkinsonG.MouratoS.SzymanskiS.OzdemirogluE. (2008). Are we willing to pay enough to “back the bid”?: Valuing the intangible impacts of London’s bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Urban Studies, 45(2), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098007085971
4.
BargetE.GouguetJ. J. (2007). The total economic value of sporting events theory and practice. Journal of Sports Economics, 8(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002505279349
5.
BarrosC. (2002). Evaluating the regulatory procedure of host-country selections for the UEFA European championship: A case study of euro 2004. European Sport Management Quarterly, 2(4), 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184740208721932
6.
BarrosC. (2006). Evaluating sport events at European level: The Euro 2004. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 1(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMM.2006.010570
7.
BatemanI. J.CarsonR. T.DayB.HanemannW. M.HanleyN.HettT.Jones-LeeM.LoomesG.MouratoS.ÔzedemirogluE.PearceP. W.SugdenR.SwansonJ. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preferences. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
8.
BishopR. C.BoyleK. J.CarsonR. T.ChapmanD.HanemannW. M.KanninenB.KoppR. J.KrosnickJ. A.ListJ.MeadeN.PatersonR.PresserS.SmithV. K.TourangeauR.WelshM.WooldridgeJ. M.DeBellM.DonovanC.KonopkaM.SchererN. (2016). Technical Memo TM-10: Econometric Analysis of Choice Questions (Revised Draft) (Journal Article: Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: The BP oil spill).
9.
CarsonR. T. (2000). Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(8), 1413–1418. https://doi.org/10.1021/es990728j
10.
CarsonR. T.FloresN. E.MeadeN. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19(2), 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243
11.
CarsonR. T.GrovesT. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5
12.
CarsonR. T.GrovesT.ListJ. A. (2014). Consequentiality: A theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1(1/2), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1086/676450
13.
CzajkowskiM.VosslerC. A.BudzińskiW.WiśniewskaA.ZawojskaE. (2017). Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preferences methods. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 142(October), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.07.023
de BoerW. I. J.KoningR. H.MierauJ. O. (2019). Ex ante and ex post willingness to pay for hosting a large international sport event. Journal of Sports Economics, 20(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002518771445
17.
del Saz SalazarS.García MenéndezL. (2007). Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter?Land Use Policy, 24(1), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.011
18.
GibbardA. (1973). Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 41(4), 587–601. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914083
GroothuisP. A.WhiteheadJ. C. (2002). Does don’t know mean no? Analysis of “don’t know” responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Applied Economics, 34(15), 1935–1940. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840210128717
21.
HaabT. C.InterisM. G.PetroliaD. R.WhiteheadJ. C. (2013). From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on hausman’s “dubious to hopeless” critique of contingent valuation. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(4), 593–612. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt029
HerrigesJ.KlingC.LiuC. C.TobiasJ. (2010). What are the consequences of consequentiality?Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2009.03.004
24.
JohnstonR. J.BoyleK. J.Vic AdamowiczW.BennettJ.BrouwerR.Ann CameronT.Michael HanemannW.HanleyN.RyanM.ScarpaR.TourangeauR.VosslerC. A. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/691697
25.
JørgensenK. K. (2017, July 16). Analyse: Dansk Formel 1-løb kan ikke etableres inden for budgettet [Danish Formula One race cannot be set up within budget]. Jyllands-Posten, 13. https://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE9725323/analyse-dansk-formel-1loeb-kan-ikke-etableres-inden-for-budgettet/
KésenneS. (2005). Do we need an economic impact study or a cost-benefit analysis of a sports event?European Sport Management Quarterly, 5(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184740500188789
KriströmB. (1997). Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(3), 1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244440
32.
MarielP.HoyosD.MeyerhoffJ.CzajkowskiM.DekkerT.GlenkK.Bredahl JacobsenJ.LiebeU.Bøye OlsenS.SagebielJ.ThieneM. (2021). Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments Guidance on Design, Implementation and Data Analysis. http://www.springer.com/series/8876
33.
MitchellR. C.CarsonR. T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (1st ed.). RFF Press.
34.
MohrT. M.GroothuisP. A.WhiteheadJ. C.CockerillK.AndersonW. P.GuC. (2022). Discrete and continuous measures of consequentiality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 12(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2022.2142301
35.
NakataniT.AizakiH.SatoK. (2021). DCchoice: An R package for analyzing dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. R package version 0.1.0. https://cran.r-project.org/package=DCchoice
36.
NelsonP. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1086/259630
37.
NielsenC. G.FeddersenA. (2023). Willingness to pay for hosting the tour de France. Sports Economics Review, 3(September), 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serev.2023.100014
38.
OrlowskiJ.WickerP. (2019). Monetary valuation of non-market goods and services: A review of conceptual approaches and empirical applications in sports. European Sport Management Quarterly, 19(4), 456–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2018.1535609
39.
RyefeltJ. (2018, September 22). Det kører slet ikke [No motion]. Ekstra Bladet, 4.
40.
SatterthwaiteM. A. (1975). Strategy-proofness and arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10(2), 187–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(75)90050-2
Ungern-SternbergT. v.WeizsäckerC. C. v. (1985). The supply of quality on a market for “experience goods.”. Journal of Industrial Economics, 33(4), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.2307/2098391
44.
VekemanA.MeuldersM.PraetA.ColpaertJ.Van PuyenbroeckT. (2015). Contingent valuation of a classic cycling race. Journal of Sports Economics, 16(3), 268–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002513476040
45.
VosslerC. A.DoyonM.RondeauD. (2012). Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(4), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.4.4.145
46.
VosslerC. A.HolladayJ. S. (2018). Alternative value elicitation formats in contingent valuation: Mechanism design and convergent validity. Journal of Public Economics, 165(September), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.07.004
47.
VosslerC. A.WatsonS. B. (2013). Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 86(February), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.007
48.
WaltonH.LongoA.DawsonP. (2008). A contingent valuation of the 2012 London Olympic games: A regional perspective. Journal of Sports Economics, 9(3), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002507308769
49.
WickerP.CoatesD. (2018). Flame goes out: Determinants of individual support at the 2024 Hamburg Games Referendum. Contemporary Economic Policy, 36(2), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12274
50.
WickerP.WhiteheadJ. C.MasonD. S.JohnsonB. K. (2017). Public support for hosting the Olympic summer games in Germany: The CVM approach. Urban Studies, 54(15), 3597–3614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016675085
51.
YooS. H.KwakS. J. (2002). Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Applied Economics Letters, 9(14), 929–932. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850210139378
52.
ZawojskaE.BartczakA.CzajkowskiM. (2019). Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 93(January), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.11.007
53.
ZawojskaE.CzajkowskiM. (2017). Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: Importance of incentive compatibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(4), 374–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2017.1322537
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
