Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: A novel scope-sensitivity test

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 199-214

  Bateman, Ian J ^a,b   Brouwer, Roy ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^c INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Health risks; Household self identification; Preference construction; Scope sensitivity

Indexed keywords

ONCOLOGY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE (DC); HOUSEHOLD SELF-IDENTIFICATION; OPEN-ENDED METHODS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP);

HEALTH RISKS;

CANCER; CONTINGENT VALUATION; HEALTH RISK; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 33746353377     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2006.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Agee M., and Crocker T. Parental altruism and child lead exposure: inferences from the demand for chelation therapy. The Journal of Human Resources 31 (2001) 677-691
2. Ariely D., Loewenstein G., and Dražen P. Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (2003) 73-105
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Leamer E., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 (1993) 4601-4614
4. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R., Georgiou S., Hanley N., Machado F., Mourato S., and Saunders S. A 'natural experiment' approach to investigating scope sensitivity in values for risk reductions: private and public UV health risk reduction strategies in low and high risk countries. Environmental and Resource Economics 31 (2005) 47-72
5. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann W.M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Özdemiroǧlu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., and Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual (2002), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
6. Bateman I.J., Cole M., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Hadley D., and Poe G.L. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47 (2004) 71-93
7. Bateman I.J., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Navrud S., Poe G.L., Ready R.C., Reira P., Ryan M., and Vossler C.A. Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: Examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquatic Sciences 67 3 (2005) 274-291
8. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H., Jones A.P., and Kerr G.N. Bound and path effects in multiple-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 23 (2001) 191-213
9. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H., Turner R.K., Willis K.G., and Garrod G.D. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics 12 (1995) 161-179
10. Bateman I.J., and Munro A.A. An experimental investigation of expected utility theory within risky choice amongst households. Economic Journal 115 (2005) C176-C189
11. Bateman I.J., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., and Sugden R. A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1997) 479-505
12. Bateman I.J., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., and Sugden R. Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation. Economic Journal 107 (1997) 322-332
13. In: Bateman I.J., and Willis K.G. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries (1999), Oxford University Press, Oxford
14. Baron J., and Greene J. Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuations of public goods: contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability and prominence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2 (1996) 107-125
15. Beattie J., Covey J., Dolan P., Hopkins L., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Pidgeon N., Robinson A., and Spencer A. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation. Part 1: Caveat investigator. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17 (1998) 5-25
16. Bentham, C.G., 1993. Depletion of the ozone layer and change in the incidence of disease. GEC Working Paper 93-01. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University of East Anglia and University College London.
17. Boyle K.J., Johnson R., McCollum D.W., Desvousges W.H., Dunford R., and Hudson S. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1994) 64-83
18. Boyle K.J., Welsh M.P., and Bishop R.C. Validation of empirical measures of welfare change, comment. Land Economics 64 (1988) 94-98
19. Brouwer R., and Bateman I.J. Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study. Journal of Health Economics 24 (2005) 591-611
20. Brouwer, R., Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Saunders, C., 1999. Public assessment of health risks associated with ozone layer depletion: a case study for New Zealand. CSERGE Global Environmental Change Working Paper GEC 99-06. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College.
21. Burton A.C., Carson K.S., Chilton S.M., and Hutchinson W.G. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?. Paper Presented at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE) Sessions at the Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana, January (2001)
22. Carson R.T. Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Kopp R.J., Pommerehne W.W., and Schwarz N. (Eds). Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods (1997), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
23. Carson R.T., Groves T., and Machina M.J. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions, Plenary Address. Ninth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE). Oslo, Norway, June (1999)
24. Carson R.T., and Mitchell R.C. The issue of scope in contingent valuation surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75 (1993) 1263-1267
25. Carthy T., Chilton S., Covey J., Hopkins L., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Pidgeon N., and Spencer A. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation. Part 2: The CV/SG chained approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17 (1999) 187-213
26. Chapman G.B., and Johnson E.J. Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79 (1999) 115-153
27. Cummings R.G., Elliott S., Harrison G.W., and Murphy J. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?. Journal of Political Economy 105 (1997) 609-621
28. Diamond P.A., Hausman J.A., Leonard G.K., and Denning M.A. Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. In: Hausman J.A. (Ed). Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment (1993), North-Holland, Amsterdam 41-89
29. Dickie, M., Gerking, S., 2003. Valuation of environmental risks to children's health. Unpublished Paper. Department of Economics, University of Central Florida, Orlando.
30. Doyle J.R., O'Connor D.J., Reynolds G.M., and Bottomley P.A. The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psychology Marketing 16 (1999) 225-243
31. Eeckhoudt L.R., and Hammitt J.K. Background risks and the value of a statistical life. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23 (2001) 261-279
32. Epley N., and Gilovich T. Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science 12 (2001) 391-396
33. Fisher A.C. The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. In: Bjornstad D.J., and Kahn J.R. (Eds). The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs (1996), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 19-37
34. Gibbard A. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41 (1973) 587-601
35. Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B., and Johnson R.L. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. Journal of Environmental Management 56 (1999) 221-229
36. Globocan. Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence World Wide, Version 1.0 IARC, Cancer Base No. 5 (2001), IARC Press, Lyon, France
37. Green, Donald, Karen E. Jacowitz, Daniel Kahneman and Daniel McFadden 1998. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods, Resource and Energy Economics, 20 pp. 85-116.
38. Greene, William H., 1993. Econometric Analysis, 2nd Ed., MacMillan Publishing Company, New York
39. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984) 332-341
40. Hanemann W.M., and Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Bateman I.J., and Willis K.G. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries (1999), Oxford University Press, Oxford 302-441
41. Hammitt J.K., and Graham J.D. Willingness to pay for health protection: Inadequate sensitivity to probability?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8 (1999) 33-62
42. Harris C.C., Driver B.L., and McLaughlin M.J. Improving the contingent valuation method: a psychological approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17 (1989) 213-229
43. Heberlein T.A., Wilson M.A., Bishop R.C., and Schaeffer N.C. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50 (2005) 1-22
44. Hicks J.R. The four consumer surpluses. Review of Economic Studies 8 (1943) 108-116
45. Hoeffler S., and Ariely D. Constructing stable preferences: a look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability. Journal of Consumer Psychology 11 (1999) 113-139
46. Hoehn J.P., and Randall A. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 (1987) 226-247
47. Jacowitz K.E., and Kahneman D. Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21 (1995) 1161-1166
48. Johnson, E. J. and Schkade, D. A. 1989. Bias in utility assessments: Further evidence and explanations. Management Science, 35, 406-424.
49. Jones-Lee M., and Loomes G. Valuing health and safety: some economic and psychological issues. In: Nau R., Gronn E., Machina M., and Bergland O. (Eds). Economic and Environmental Risk and Uncertainty: New Models and Methods (1997), Kluwer Academic Press, Amsterdam 3-32
50. Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., O'Reilly, D., Philips, P.R., 1993. The value of preventing non-fatal road injuries: findings of a willingness-to-pay national sample survey. Working Paper WP/SRC/2. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berks.
51. Kriström B. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Economics 66 (1990) 135-139
52. Kriström B. Comparing continuous and discrete choice valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 3 (1993) 63-71
53. Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J., 1993. Welfare measures for contingent valuation studies: estimation and reliability. Global Environmental Change Working Paper 93-04. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College London.
54. Langford I.H., Day R.J., McDonald A.-L., Bateman I.J., Moulden-Horrocks S., and Saunders C. Perceptions of risk of malignant melanoma skin cancer from sunlight: a comparative study of young people in the UK and New Zealand. Risk, Decision and Policy 3 (1998) 233-244
55. Loomis J.B., Lockwood M., and DeLacy T. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25 (1993) 45-55
56. Liu J., Hammitt J., Wang J., and Liu J. Mother's willingness to pay for her own and her child's health: a contingent valuation study in Taiwan. Health Economics 9 (2000) 319-326
57. McFadden D. Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76 (1994) 689-708
58. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
59. Nastis S., and Crocker T. Pregnant mothers' valuation of own and of child health. Presented at the USEPA Workshop on Valuing Environmental Health Risks to Children. Washington, DC, October 20-21 (2003)
60. Newson R. Parameters behind "nonparametric" statistics: Kendall's tau, Somers' D and median differences. Stata Journal 2 (2002) 45-64
61. Owens N., and Wiggins L. Willingness to pay for reduced risk: inferences from the demand for bicycle helmets. Presented at the US EPA Workshop on Valuing Environmental Health Risks to Children. Washington, DC, October 20-21 (2003)
62. Ready R.C., Navrud S., and Dubourg W.R. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer CV questions?. Land Economics 77 (2001) 315-326
63. Rollins K.S., and Lyke A.J. The case for diminishing marginal existence values. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 (1998) 324-344
64. Rosenzweig M.R., and Wolpin K.I. Natural "Natural experiments" in economics. Journal of Economic Literature 38 4 (2000) 827-874
65. Satterthwaite M.A. Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: existence and correspondence theorems of voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10 (1975) 187-217
66. Schkade D.A., and Payne J.W. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 (1994) 88-109
67. Schulze W.D., McClelland G.H., Lazo J.K., and Rowe R.D. Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values. Resource and Energy Economics 20 (1998) 163-178
68. Slovic P. The construction of preferences. American Psychologist 50 (1995) 364-371
69. Smith V.K., and Osborne L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a scope test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 (1996) 287-301
70. Smith V.K., Zhang X., and Palmquist R.B. Marine debris, beach quality, and non-market values. Environmental and Resource Economics 10 (1999) 223-247
71. Strack F., and Mussweiler T. Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (1997) 437-446
72. Taylor L.O., McKee M., Laury S.K., and Cummings R.G. Induced value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Economic Letters 71 (2001) 61-66
73. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974) 1124-1131
74. Tversky A., Sattath S., and Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgement and choice. Psychological Review 95 (1988) 371-384
75. Viscusi K., and Evans W. Utility functions that depend on health status: estimates and economic implications. American Economic Review 81 (1990) 353-374