External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1-23

  Lew, Daniel K ^a,b   Wallmo, Kristy ^c,d  

^a NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Endangered fish; Marine mammals; Scope tests; Stated preference methods; US Endangered Species Act; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

MAMMALS; TESTING;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; MARINE MAMMALS; STATED PREFERENCE METHOD; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CONSERVATION;

ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; PINNIPED; SALMONID; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

MAMMALIA; MONACHUS SCHAUINSLANDI; ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA; PRISTIDAE;

EID: 78650171437     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9394-1     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80: 64-75.
2. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Am J Agric Econ 26: 271-292.
3. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8(1): 83-110.
4. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58(10): 4601-4614.
5. Bateman I, Brouwer R (2006) Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: a novel scope-sensitivity test. Res Energy Econ 28: 199-214.
6. Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, Hanemann W, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce D, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Northampton.
7. Bateman I, Cole M, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Hadley D, Poe G (2004) On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. J Environ Econ Manage 47: 71-93.
8. Bateman I, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Navrud S, Poe G, Ready R, Riera P, Ryan M, Vossler C (2005) Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquat Sci 67: 274-291.
9. Berrens R, Bohara A, Silva C, Brookshire D, McKee M (2000) Contingent values for new Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. J Environ Manage 58: 73-90.
10. Berrens R, Ganderton P, Silva C (1996) Valuing the protection of minimum instream flows in new Mexico. J Agric Res Econ 21(2): 294-309.
11. Carson R (1997) Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Kopp R, Pommerhene W, Schwartz N (eds) Determining the value of non-marketed goods: economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods. Kluwer, Boston.
12. Carson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environ Res Econ 37: 181-210.
13. Carson R, Mitchell R (1993) The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. Am J Agric Econ 75(5): 1263-1267.
14. Carson R, Mitchell R (1995) Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manage 28: 155-173.
15. Carson R, Flores N, Hanemann W (1998) Sequencing and valuing public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 36: 314-323.
16. Cummings R, Taylor L (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649-665.
17. Czajkowski M, Hanley N (2009) Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Env Res Econ, Online First.
18. Desvousges W, Johnson F, Dunford R, Boyle K, Hudson S, Wilson K (1993) Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. In: Hausman J (eds) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North Holland Publishers, Amsterdam.
19. Diamond P, Hausman J, Leonard G, Denning M (1993) Does contingent valuation measure preferences? experimental evidence. In: Hausman J (eds) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North Holland Publishers, Amsterdam.
20. Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley, New York.
21. Fischhoff B, Furby L (1988) Measuring values: a conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. J Risk Uncertain 1(2): 147-184.
22. Fischhoff B, Quadrel M, Kamlet M, Loewenstein G, Dawes R, Fischbeck P, Klepper S, Leland J, Stroh P (1993) Embedding effects: stimulus representation and response mode. J Risk Uncertain 6: 211-234.
23. Giraud K, Loomis J, Johnson R (1999) Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. J Environ Manage 56: 221-229.
24. Hammitt J (2000) Evaluating contingent valuation of environmental health risks: the proportionality test. Assoc Environ Res Econ Newslett 20(1): 14-19.
25. Hammitt J, Graham J (1999) Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to scope?. J Risk Uncertain 8: 33-62.
26. Hanley N, Wright R, Adamowicz W (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues, current experience, and future prospects. Environ Res Econ 11(3-4): 413-428.
27. Heberlein T, Wilson M, Bishop R, Schaeffer N (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 50: 1-22.
28. Herriges J, Kling C (1999) Nonlinear income effects in random utility models. Rev Econ Stat 81(1): 62-72.
29. Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 33(3): 307-317.
30. Kahneman D (1986) Comments. In: Cummings R, Brookshire D, Schuze W (eds) Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa.
31. Kahneman D, Knetsch J (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage 22: 57-70.
32. Layton D (2000) Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys. J Environ Econ Manage 40: 21-36.
33. Layton D, Brown G, Plummer M (2001) Valuing multiple programs to improve fish populations. Unpublished report to the Washington state department of ecology.
34. Layton D, Levine R (2005) Bayesian approaches to modeling stated preference data. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Springer, Dordrecht.
35. Leiter A, Pruckner G (2009) Proportionality of willingness to pay to small changes in risk: the impact of attitudinal factors in scope tests. Env Res Econ 42: 169-186.
36. Lew D, Layton D, Rowe R (2010) Valuing enhancements to endangered species protection under alternative baseline futures: the case of the steller sea lion. Mar Res Econ 25: 133-154.
37. Loomis J, Ekstrand E (1997) Economic benefits of critical habitat for the mexican spotted owl: a scope test using a multiple-bounded contingent valuation survey. J Agric Res Econ 22(2): 356-366.
38. Loomis J, Larson D (1994) Total economic values of increasing gray whale populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Mar Res Econ 9: 275-286.
39. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods-analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Morey E, Rowe R, Watson M (1993) A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic Salmon fishing. Am J Agric Econ 75: 578-592.
41. Olar M, Adamowicz W, Boxall P, West G (2007) Estimation of the economic benefits of Marine mammal recovery in the St. Lawrence Estuary. Report to the policy and economics branch, fisheries and oceans Canada, regional branch Quebec.
42. Poe G, Giraud K, Loomis J (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agric Econ 87(2): 353-365.
43. Poe G, Severance-Lossin E, Welsh M (1994) Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach. Am J Agric Econ 76(4): 904-915.
44. Reaves D, Kramer R, Holmes T (1999) Does question format matter? Valuing an endangered species. Environ Res Econ 14: 365-383.
45. Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68: 1535-1548.
46. Rollins K, Lyke A (1998) The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J Environ Econ Manage 36: 324-344.
47. Rudd M (2009) National values for regional aquatic species at risk in canada. Endanger Species Res 6: 239-249.
48. Samples K, Hollyer J (1990) Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. In: Johnson R, Johnson G (eds) Economic valuation of natural resources: issues, theory, and applications. West View Press, Boulder, pp 177-193.
49. Schkade D, Payne J (1994) How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manage 26: 88-109.
50. Siikamaki J, Layton D (2007) Discrete choice survey experiments: a comparison using flexible methods. J Environ Econ Manage 53: 122-139.
51. Smith V (1992) Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. J Environ Econ Manage 22: 71-89.
52. Smith V, Osborne L (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a 'Scope' test? A meta-analysis. J Environ Econ Manage 31: 287-301.
53. Train K (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ 74(2): 230-239.
54. Train K (2003) Discrete Choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
55. Veisten K, Hoen H, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manage 73: 314-331.