Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across Europe

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 365-387

  Bateman, I J ^a   Brouwer, R ^c   Ferrini, S ^a,b   Schaafsma, M ^a   Barton, D N ^d   Dubgaard, A ^e   Hasler, B ^f   Hime, S ^a   Liekens, I ^g   Navrud, S ^h   de Nocker, L ^g   Sceponaviciute R ⁱ   Semeniene D ⁱ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^f AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^g FLEMISH INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH VITO   (Belgium)

^h NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

ⁱ Center for Environmental Policy   (Lithuania)

Author keywords

Benefit transfers; Methodology; Non market valuation; Stated preference; Transfer errors; Water quality

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE;

BENEFIT TRANSFER; BENEFITS TRANSFER; METHODOLOGY; NON-MARKET BENEFITS; NON-MARKET VALUATION; STATED PREFERENCES; STATISTICAL APPROACH; WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS;

WATER QUALITY;

ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ERROR ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; THEORETICAL STUDY; VALUATION; WATER QUALITY;

EUROPE;

EID: 80053924793     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-011-9476-8     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Amiran EY, Hagen DA (2010) The scope trials: variation in sensitivity to scope and WTP with directionally bounded utility functions. J Environ Econ Manag 59: 293-301. doi: 10. 1016/j. jeem. 2009. 06. 003.
2. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg 58(1993): 4601-4614.
3. Banerjee S, Murphy JH (2005) The scope test revisited. Appl Econ Lett 12(10): 613-617.
4. Barton DN (2002) The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 42: 147-164.
5. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol Econ 12(2): 161-179. doi: 10. 1016/0921-8009(94)00044-V.
6. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day BH, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Pearce E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
7. Bateman IJ, Jones AP, Lovett AA, Lake I, Day BH (2002) Applying geographical information systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ Resour Econ 22(1-2): 219-269. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1015575214292.
8. Bateman IJ, Jones AP (2003) Contrasting conventional with multi-level modelling approaches to meta-analysis: an illustration using UK woodland recreation values. Land Econ 79(2): 235-258. doi: 10. 3368/le. 79. 2. 235.
9. Bateman IJ, Cole M, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Hadley D, Poe GL (2004) On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. J Environ Econ Manag 47: 71-93. doi: 10. 1016/S0095-0696(03)00057-3.
10. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60(2): 450-460. doi: 10. 1016/j. ecolecon. 2006. 04. 003.
11. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Jones AP, Jude S (2009) Reducing gains/loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment (VRCE) valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Manag 58: 106-118. doi: 10. 1016/j. jeem. 2008. 05. 003.
12. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Dupont D, Georgiou S (2009) Procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method. Rev Econ Stat 91(4): 806-820. doi: 10. 1162/rest. 91. 4. 806.
13. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Liekens I, Navrud S, De Nocker L, Ščeponavičiu-te R, Semeniene D (2009c) Making benefit transfers work: transferring theoretically derived, spatially explicit, value functions for the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe, CSERGE Working Paper, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, UK.
14. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Cranford M, Hime S, Ozdemiroglu E, Phang Z, Provins A (2010) Valuing Environmental Impacts: Practical Guidelines for the Use of Value Transfer in Policy and Project Appraisal, Main Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Economics for the Environment Consultancy (eftec), London.
15. Bergland O, Magnussen K, Navrud S (1995) Benefit transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability. Discussion Paper, #D-03/1995, Department of Economics and Social Sciences. Agricultural University of Norway.
16. Brouwer R (2000) Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol Econ 32: 137-152.
17. Brouwer R, Bateman IJ (2005) Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study. J Health Econ 24: 591-611.
18. Brouwer R, Spaninks FA (1999) The validity of environmental benefits transfer: further empirical testing. Environ Resour Econ 14(1): 95-117.
19. Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1993) The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resour Res 29(7): 2445-2454.
20. Carson R, Hanemann M, Kopp R, Krosnick J, Mitchell R, Presser S, Rudd P, Smith VK, with Conaway M, Martin K (1996) Was the NOAA panel correct about contingent valuation? Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 96-20, Washington, DC.
21. Carson RT, Flores NE, Hanemann WM (1998) Sequencing and valuing public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 36: 314-323.
22. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1): 181-210.
23. Carson RT, Sun Y (2007) The Tobit model with a non-zero threshold. Economet J 10: 488-502.
24. Champ, AP., Boyle, K., Tom Brown, C (eds) (2003) A primer on non-market valuation, the economics of non-market goods and services: vol 3. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
25. Chattopadhyay S (2003) A repeated sampling technique in assessing the validity of benefit transfer in valuing non-market goods. Land Econ 79(4): 576-596.
26. Covey J, Loomes G, Bateman IJ (2007) Valuing risk reductions: testing for range biases in payment card and random card sorting methods. J Environ Plan Manag 50(4): 467-482. doi: 10. 1080/09640560701401986.
27. Desvousges WH, Naughton MC, Parsons GR (1992) Benefit transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resour Res 28(3): 675-683.
28. Desvousges WH, Smith VK, Fisher A (1987) Option price estimates for water quality improvements: a contingent valuation study of the Monongahela River. J Environ Econ Manag 14: 248-267.
29. European Parliament (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC (The EU Water Framework Directive). Official Journal (OJ L 327): 22 December 2000.
30. Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA (2005) Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?. Med Decis Mak 25: 398-405.
31. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2003) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of nonmarket valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Massachusetts.
32. Halstead JM, Lindsay BE, Brown CM (1991) Use of the Tobit model in the contingent valuation: experimental evidence from the Pemigewasset wilderness area. J Environ Manag 33: 79-89.
33. Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 50: 1-22.
34. Hime S, Bateman IJ, Posen P, Hutchins M (2009) A transferable water quality ladder for conveying use and ecological information within public surveys. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 09-01, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia.
35. Hutchins MG, Deflandre A, Boorman DB (2006) Performance benchmarking linked diffuse pollution and in-stream water quality models. Archiv fur Hydrobiol Suppl 161(17): 133-154.
36. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Iovanna R, Miller CJ, Wardwell RF, Ranson MH (2005) Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Can J Agricul Econ 53: 48-221.
37. Johnston RJ, Ranson MH, Besedin EY, Helm EC (2006) What determines willingness to pay per fish? A meta-analysis of recreational fishing values. Marine Resour Econ 21: 1-32.
38. Johnston RJ, Duke JM (2009) Willingness to pay for land preservation across states and jurisdictional scale: implications for benefit transfer. Land Econ 85(2): 217-237.
39. Jones AP, Bateman IJ, Wright J (2002) Estimating arrival numbers and values for informal recreational use of British woodlands, report to the Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, published at http://www. forestry. gov. uk.
40. Jones AP, Wright J, Bateman IJ, Schaafsma M (2010) Estimating arrival numbers for informal recreation: a geographical approach and case study of British woodlands. Sustainability 2(2): 684-701. doi: 10. 3390/su2020684.
41. Leon-Gonzalez R, Scarpa R (2008) Improving multi-site benefit functions via Bayesian model averaging: a new approach to benefit transfer. J Environ Econ Manag 56(1): 50-68.
42. Lindhjem HL, Navrud S (2008) How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers?. Ecol Econ 66: 425-435.
43. Marta-Pedroso C, Freitas H, Domingos T (2007) Testing the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecol Econ 62: 388-398.
44. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington.
45. Moeltner K, Boyle KJ, Paterson RW (2007) Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-Addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling. J Environ Econ Manag 53: 69-250.
46. Muthke T, Holm-Mueller K (2004) National and international benefit transfer testing with a rigorous test procedure. Environ Resour Econ 29: 323-336.
47. Navrud S, Ready R (2007) Review of methods for value transfer. In: Navrud S, Ready R (eds) Environmental value transfer: issues and methods. Springer, Dordrecht.
48. Navrud, S, Ready, R (eds) (2007) Environmental value transfer: issues and methods. Springer, Dordrecht.
49. Pearce DW, Whittington D, Georgiou S (1994) Project and policy appraisal: integrating economics and environment. OECD, Paris.
50. Peters E, Slovic P, Hibbard J (2005) Bringing meaning to numbers: evaluability and affect in choice. University of Oregon, Eugene.
51. Powe NA, Bateman IJ (2004) Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Econ 80(2): 258-271.
52. Rollins KS, Lyke AJ (1998) The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J Environ Econ Manag 36: 324-344.
53. Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Breffle W (1996) A test for payment card biases. J Environ Econ Manag 31: 178-185.
54. Sigelman L, Zeng L (1999) Analyzing censored and sample-selected data with Tobit and Heckit models. Polit Anal 8(2): 167-182.
55. Sutherland RJ, Walsh RG (1985) Effect of distance on the preservation value of water-quality. Land Econ 61(3): 281-291.
56. UKTAG (2008) UK Environmental Standards and Conditions (Phase 1): Final Report-April 2008, The UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive (UKTAG). http://www. wfduk. org/.
57. van den Berg TP, Poe GL, Powell JR (2001) Assessing the accuracy of benefits transfers: evidence from a multi-site contingent valuation study of ground water quality. In: Bergstrom J, Boyle K, Poe G (eds) The economic value of water quality. Edward Elgar, Northampton.
58. WATECO (2004) Economics and the environment-the implementation challenge of the water framework directive. Luxembourg: European Commission.
59. World Bank: (2008) Global purchasing power parities and real expenditures. World Bank, Washington.
60. Zandersen M, Termansen M, Jensen FS (2007) Testing benefits transfer of forest recreation values over a twenty-year time Horizon. Land Econ 83(3): 412-440.
61. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2005) What's time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Risk Anal 25(3): 589-595.