Do contingent valuation estimates pass a 'scope' test? A meta-analysis

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 287-301

  Smith, V Kerry ^a,b   Osborne, Laura L ^c  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

^c GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030293784     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0045     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. 1. K. Arrow, E. Learner, H. Schuman, and R. Solow, "Comments on NOAA Proposed Rule on Natural Resource Damage Assessment 69" (1994).
2. 2. K. Arrow, R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman, "Report of NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuationo," 58 Fed Reg 46 (1993).
3. 3. W. E. Balson, R. T. Carson, M. B. Conaway, B. Fischhoff, W. M. Hanemann, A. Hulse, R. J. Kopp, K. M. Martin, R. C. Mitchell, J. Molenar, S. Presser, and P. A. Ruud, "Development and Design of a Contingent Valuation Survey for Measuring the Public's Value for Visibility Improvements at the Grand Canyon National Park," draft report, Decision Focus, Inc., Los Altos, CA (1990).
4. 4. G. E. P. Box and D. R. Cox, An analysis of transformations, J. Roy. Statist. Soc., Series B, 26, 211-243 (1964).
5. 5. L. G. Chestnut and R. D. Rowe, "Preservation Value for Visibility Protection at the National Parks," draft final report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RCG/Hagler Bailley (1990).
6. 6. L. G. Chestnut and R. D. Rowe, Economic valuation of changes in visibility: A state of the science assessment for NAPAP, in "Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology, Report No. 27, Methods for Valuing Acidic Deposition and Air Pollution Effects," Washington, D.C., NAPAP (1990).
7. 7. R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schulze, "Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method," Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ (1986).
8. 8. R. Cornes, Dyke maintenance and other stories: Some neglected types of Public goods, Quart. J. Econ. 108, 259-272 (1993).
9. 9. W. H. Desvousges, F. R. Johnson, R. W. Dunford, K. J. Boyle, S. P. Hudson, and K. N. Wilson, "Measuring Nonuse Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy," RTI Monograph 92-1, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NJ, (1992).
10. 10. P. A. Diamond, Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. J. Environ. Econom. Management, in press (1966).
11. 11. P. A. Diamond, and J. A. Hauseman, On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values, "Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment" (J. A. Hausman, Ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam (1993).
12. 12. P. A. Diamond and J. A. Hausman, Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number?, J. Econom. Perspectives 8, 45-64 (1994).
13. 13. P. A. Diamond, J. A. Hausman, G. K. Leonard, and M. A. Denning, Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental Evidence, in "Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, (J. A. Hausman, Ed.) North-Holland, Amsterdam (1993).
14. 14. W. M. Hanemann, Willingness to pay versus willingness to accept: How much can they differ? Amer. Econom. Rev. 81, 635-647 (1991).
15. 15. W. M. Hanemann, Preface: Notes on the history of environmental valuation in the USA, in "Pricing the Environment: The European Experience" (S. Navrud, Ed.), Oxford U. Press, Oxford (1992).
16. 16. W. M. Hanemann, Valuing the environment through contingent valuation, J. Econom. Perspectives 8, 19-44 (1994).
17. 17. G. Harrison, "Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists," working paper 90-04, University of South Carolina, September, 1990.
18. 18. J. Hirshleifer, From weakest link to best shot: The voluntary provision of public goods," Public Choice 41(3), 371-86 (1983); and correction in Public Choice (1985), Vol. 46, 221-223.
19. 19. P. J. Huber, The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions, in "Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability," Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA (1967).
20. 20. P. O. Johansson, "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1987).
21. 21. D. S. Levy, J. K. Hammett, N. Duan, T. Downes-Le Guin, and D. Friedman, "Conceptual and Statistical Issues in Contingent Valuation: Estimating the Value of Altered Visibility in the Grand Canyon," Rand, Santa Monica, CA (1995).
22. 22. K. MacFarland, W. Malm, and J. Molenar, An examination of methodologies for assessing the value of visibility, in "Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas" (R. Rowe and L. Chestnut, Eds.), Westview Press, Boulder, CO (1983).
23. 23. P. R. Portney, The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care, J. Econom. Perspectives 8, 3-18 (1994).
24. 24. R. D. Rowe, R. d'Arge, and D. Brookshire, An experiment on the economic value of visibility, J. Environ. Econom. Management 7, 1-19 (1980).
25. 25. R. D. Rowe and L. G. Chestnut, "The Value of Visibility: Economic Theory and Applications for Air Pollution Control," Abt Books, Cambridge, MA (1982).
26. 26. W. D. Schulze, D. Brookshire, E. Walther, and K. Kelly, "The Benefits of Preserving Visibility in the National Parklands of the Southwest, VIII," draft report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (1983).
27. 27. T. K. Stewart, P. Middleton, and D. Ely, Judgments of visual air quality: Reliability and validity, J. Environ. Management 3, 129-145 (1983).
28. 28. T. K. Stewart, P. Middleton, M. Downton, and D. Ely, Judgments of photographs versus field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment, J. Environ. Psych. 4, 283-302 (1984).
29. 29. H. White, A heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity, Econometrica 48, 817-830 (1980).