Validity of contingent valuation estimates from developing countries: scope sensitivity analysis

Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 39-61

  Memon, Mushtaq Ahmed ^a   Matsuoka, Shunji ^b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES   (Japan)

^b HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Developing countries; Health risks; Scope sensitivity analysis; Water supply

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749507324     PISSN: 1432847X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03354023     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Alberini A, Eskeland GS, Krupnick A, McGranahan G (1996) Determinants of diarrheal disease in Jakarta. Policy and Research Working Paper 1568. World Bank, Washington, DC
2. Altaf MA, Jamal H, Liu JL, Smith VK, Whittington D (1997) Measuring the private benefits from connections to public water systems in developing countries: a case study of Punjab, Pakistan. Duke economics working paper 97-24. Duke University, Durham, NC
3. Altaf MA, Whittington D, Jamal H, Smith VK (1993) Rethinking rural water supply policy in the Punjab, Pakistan. Water Resources Research 29:1943–1954
4. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Learner EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58:4601–4614
5. Baron J (1996) Rationality and invariance: response to Schuman. In: Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR (eds) The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issues and research needs. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
6. Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1993) Valuation of environment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuation method. In: Turner RK (ed) Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practices. Belhaven Press, London
7. Becker GS (1974) A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy 82:1063–1093
8. Boadway RW, Bruce N (1984) A welfare economics. Blackwell, New York
9. Bowen E, Starr M (1982) Basic statistics for business and economics. McGraw-Hill, Singapore
10. Boyle KJ, et al (2000) Test of scope in contingent-valuation studies: are the numbers for the birds. (http://www.feem.it/gnee/pap-abs/ahearn.pdf)
11. Burtraw D, Krupnick A (1999) Measuring the value of health improvements from Great Lakes cleanup. Discussion paper 99-34. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC (http://www.rff.org)
12. Cairncross S (1996) Water quality, quantity, and health. In: Drangert 4et al (eds) Conference on safe water environments. Water and environmental studies report no. 24, Linkoping University, Sweden
13. Carson RT (1999) Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Discussion paper 99-26R. University of California, San Diego (ftp://weber.ucsd.edu/pub/econlib/dpapers/ucsd9926r.pdf)
14. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2000) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Discussion paper 96-36R. University of California, San Diego (ftp://weber.ucsd.edu/pub/econlib/dpapers/ucsd9636r.pdf)
15. Chambers R (1994a) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22:953–969
16. Chambers R (1994b) Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): analysis of experience. World Development 22:1253–1268
17. Choe K, Whittington D, Lauria DT (1996) The economic benefits of surface water quality improve-ments in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Economics 72:519–537
18. Corso PS, Hammitt JK, Graham JD (2000) Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. Submitted
19. Crutchfield SR, Cooper JC, Hellerstein D (1997) Benefits of safer drinking water: the value of nitrate reduction. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aer752/AER752.PDF)
20. Diamond PA (1996) Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30:337–347
21. Diamond PA, Hausman JA, Leonard GK, Denning MA (1993) Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. In: Hausman JA (ed) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North-Holland, Amsterdam
22. Fox J (1997) Applied regression analysis, linear models and related methods. Sage, London
23. Garrod G, Willis KG (1999) Economic valuation of the environment: methods and case studies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
24. Griffin CC, et al (1995) Contingent valuation and actual behavior: predicting connections to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India. World Bank Economic Review 9:373–395
25. Hammitt JK (2000a) Evaluating contingent valuation of environmental health risks: the proportionality test. AERE Newsletter 20(1):14–19
26. Hammitt JK (2000b), Valuing mortality risk: theory and practice. Environmental Science Technology 34:1396–1400
27. Hammitt JK, Graham JD (1999) Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8:33–62
28. Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent value. Journal of Economic Perspective 8(4): 19–43
29. Hanemann WM (1996) Theory versus data in the contingent valuation debate. In: Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR (eds) The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issues and research needs. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
30. Hausman JA (1993) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North-Holland, Amsterdam
31. Johansson PO (1987) The economics theory and measurement of environmental benefits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
32. Kask SB, Shogren JF (1994) Benefit transfer protocol for long-term health risk valuation: a case of surface water contamination. Water Resources Research 30:2813–2823
33. Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, Itaoka K, Akai M (1999) Mortality risk valuation for environmental policy. Discussion Paper 99-47. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC (http://www.rff.org)
34. Lauria DT, Whittington D, Choe K, Turingan C, Abiad V (1999) Household demand for improved sanitation services: a case study of Calmba, the Philippines. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, New York
35. Manning WG, Mullahy J (1999) Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform. NBER working paper T0246. Cambridge
36. Memon MA (2001) Household characteristics, health benefits, and willingness to pay for rural water supply in Pakistan. Journal of International Development Studies 10:121–137
37. Memon MA, Matsuoka S (2001) Benefit transfer function to estimate WTP for rural water supply in Pakistan. Journal of International Development Studies 10:101–119
38. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
39. Pears D, Crowards T (1996) Particulate matter and human health in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 27:609–620
40. Ravenswaay EO, Wohl J (1995) Using contingent valuation methods to value the health risks from pesticides residues when risks are ambiguous. In: Casewell JE (ed) Valuing food safety and nutrition. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
41. Smith VK (1992) Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts: comments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22:71–89
42. Smith VK (1993) Non-market valuation of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal. Land Economics 69(1): 1–26
43. Smith VK (2000) Fifty years of contingent valuation. In: Kobe conference on theory and application of environmental valuation, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
44. Smith VK, Desvousges WH (1987) An empirical analysis of the economic value of risk changes. Journal of Political Economy 95:89–114
45. Smith VK, Houtven GV (1998) Non-market valuation and the household. Duke University working paper 98-04 (http://www.econ.duke.edu/Papers/Other/Kerrys/household.ps)
46. Smith VK, Osborne LL (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope” test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31:287–301
47. USEPA (2000) Handbook for non-cancer health effects valuation. EPA Science and Policy Council, Washington, DC
48. Whitehead JC, Houtven GV (1997) Methods for valuing the benefits of the safe drinking water act: review and assessment. Working paper 9705. Department of Economics, East Carolina University (http://www.ecu.edu/wp/97/ecu9705.pdf)
49. Whittington D (1998) Administrating contingent valuation surveys in developing countries. World Development 26:21–30
50. World Health Organization (1996) Water and sanitation. Fact sheet no. 112 (http://www.who.org/inf/fs/fact112/html)