Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 73, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 317-331

  Veisten, Knut ^a,c   Fredrik Hoen, Hans ^a   Navrud, Ståle ^a   Strand, Jon ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS   (Norway)

Author keywords

Complex environmental amenities; Contingent valuation; Passive use; Scope insensitivity

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION;

COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITY; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; ELICITATION FORMAT; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITIES; PASSIVE USE; SCOPE INSENSITIVITY; SUB-SAMPLES; VALUATION SURVEYS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

BIODIVERSITY;

AMENITY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CALCULATION; CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INTERVIEW; NORWAY; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; THEORETICAL MODEL; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 7544247256     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. K.J. Arrow R. Solow E. Leamer P. Portney R. Radner H. Schuman Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation Federal Register 58 1993 4601-4614
2. I.J. Bateman K.G. Willis Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation in the US, EU, and developing countries 1999 Oxford University Press Oxford
3. I.J. Bateman M. Cole P. Cooper S. Georgiou D. Hadley G.L. Poe On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47 1 2004 71-93
4. R.C. Bishop M.P. Welsh Existence values in benefit-cost analysis and damage assessment Land Economics 68 4 1992 405-417
5. D.J. Bjornstad J.R. Kahn The contingent valuation of environmental resources: Methodological issues and research needs 1996 Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Brookfield, Vt
6. K.J. Boyle W.H. Desvousges F. Reed Johnson R.W. Dunford S.P. Hudson An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent-valuation studies Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 1994 64-83
7. K.J. Boyle R. Bishop D. Hellerstein M.P. Welsh M.C. Ahearn A. Laughland J. Charbonneau R. O'Conner Test of scope in contingent-valuation studies: Are the numbers for the birds Paper presented at the World Congress of Resource and Environmental Economists (AERE/EAERE), June, Venice, Italy 1998
8. G.M. Brown Jr J.F. Shogren Economics of the endangered species act Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 3 1998 3-20
9. R.T. Carson in: R.J. Kopp W. Pommerhene N. Schwartz (Eds.) Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope Determining the value of non-marketed goods: Economic, psychological and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods 1997 Kluwer Boston
10. R.T. Carson R.C. Mitchell The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75 1993 1263-1267
11. R.T. Carson R.C. Mitchell Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 2 1995 155-173
12. R.T. Carson L. Wilks D. Imber Valuing the preservation of Australia's Kakadu conservation zone Oxford Economic Papers 46 1994 727-749
13. R.T. Carson N.E. Flores K.M. Martin J.L. Wright Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods Land Economics 72 1 1996 80-99
14. R.T. Carson N.E. Flores N.F. Meade Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence Environmental and Resource Economics 19 2001 173-210
15. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., Machina, M.J., 2000, Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Draft, February 2000. Department of Economics. University of California. San Diego. 47 p.
16. R.G. Cummings G.W. Harrison Was the Ohio court well informed in its assessment of the accuracy of the contingent valuation method? Natural Resource Journal 34 1994 1-36
17. R.G. Cummings G.W. Harrison The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: A critical review Environmental and Resource Economics 5 1995 225-247
18. R.G. Cummings D.S. Brookshire W.D. Schulze Valuing Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 1986 Rowman, Allanheld Totowa, NJ
19. R.G. Cummings G.W. Harrison E.E. Rutström Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible? American Economic Review 85 1995 260-266
20. P.A. Diamond J.A. Hausman Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 4 1994 45-64
21. P.A. Diamond J.A. Hausman G.K. Leonard M.A. Denning Does contingent valuation measure preferences? In: J.A. Hausman (Ed.) Experimental evidence Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers Amsterdam Chapter 2
22. Earth Summit+5. 1997. Special Session of the General Assembly to Review and Appraise the Implementation of Agenda 21. New York, 23-27 June 1997, UN. http://www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/ .
23. K. Giraud J. Loomis R. Johnson Internal and external scope in willingness to pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife Journal of Environmental Management 56 3 1999 221-229
24. C. Green S. Tunstall in: I.J. Bateman K.G. Willis (Eds.) A psychological perspective Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation in the US, EU, and developing countries 1999 Oxford University Press Oxford
25. W.G. Greene third ed. Econometric Analysis 1997 Macmillan New York
26. W.M. Hanemann Valuing the environment through contingent valuation Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 4 1994 19-43
27. J. Hausmann Contingent valuation. A critical assessment. Contributions to economic analysis Vol. 220 1993 Amsterdam Elsevier
28. J.P. Hoehn J.B. Loomis Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25 1993 56-75
29. H.F. Hoen G. Winther Multiple use forestry and preservation of coniferous forests in Norway: A study of attitudes and willingness to pay Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8 1993 266-280
30. R. Hoevenagel The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding Environmental and Resource Economics 7 1996 57-78
31. D. Kahneman in: R.G. Cummings D.S. Brookshire W.D. Schulze (Eds.) The review panel assessment: Comment Valuing Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 1986 Rowman, Allanheld Totowa
32. D. Kahneman J.L. Knetsch Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 1992 57-70
33. M.A. Kemp C. Maxwell in: J.A. Hausman (Ed.) Exploring a budget context for contingent valuation estimates Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers North-Holland
34. R.J. Kopp Why existence value should be included in cost-benefit analysis Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11 1 1992
35. B. Kriström Spike models in contingent valuation American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 3 1997 1013-1023
36. J. Loomis M. Lockwood T. DeLacy Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25 1993 45-55
37. K. Magnussen Valuing reduced water pollution using the contingent valuation method: Testing for mental accounts and amenity misspecification in: S. Navurd (Ed.) Pricing the European Environment 1992 Oxford University Press Oxford
38. D. McFadden G.K. Leonard Issues in contingent valuation of environmental goods: Methodologies for data collection and analysis in: J.A. Hausman (Ed.) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers North-Holland
39. R.C. Mitchell R.D. Carson Using surveys to value public goods The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC 1989
40. Randall A. Hoehn J.P. 1993 Embedding effects in contingent valuation. Staff Paper No. 93-06 (Draft). Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, MI, US
41. A. Randall J.P. Hoehn Embedding in market demand systems Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 1996 369-380
42. R.C. Ready S. Navrud W.R. Dubourg How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Land Economics 77 2001 315-326
43. K. Rollins A. Lyke The case for diminishing marginal existence values Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 1998 324-344
44. R.D. Rowe W.D. Schulze W.S. Breffle A test for payment card bias Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 1996 178-185
45. SAS SAS SAS/STAT (R) User's Guide - Version 6 1997 SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, North Carolina 1848 p
46. D.A. Schkade J.W. Payne How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 1994 88-109
47. W. Schulze G. McClelland D. Waldman J. Lazo Sources of bias in contingent valuation in: D.J. Bjornstad J.R. Kahn (Eds.) The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs 1996 Brookfield, Vt Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
48. R. Sinden Public goods and contingent valuation in: I.J. Bateman K.G. Willis (Eds.) Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU, and Developing Countries 1999 Oxford University Press Oxford
49. V.K. Smith Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 1992 71-89
50. V.K. Smith L.L. Osborne Do contingent valuation estimates pass a 'scope' test? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 1996 287-301
51. H. Svedsäter Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: Test of perfect and regular embedding Journal of Economic Psychology 21 2000 605-623
52. R.H. Thaler Saving, fungibility and mental accounts Journal of Economic Perspectives 4 1990 193-205
53. A. Tversky D. Kahneman Rational choice and the framing of decisions Journal of Business 59 1986 251-278
54. H.R. Varian Microeconomic Analysis 1992 Norton, Company Inc. New York third ed.
55. Veisten, K., Hoen, H.F., Navrud, S., Strand, J., 1993, Valuing biodiversity in Norwegian forests: A contingent valuation study with multiple bias testing. Memorandum 7, Department of Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.