Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation

Ecological Economics

Volumn 84, Issue , 2012, Pages 121-128

  Desvousges, William ^a   Mathews, Kristy ^b   Train, Kenneth ^c  

^a WH Desvousges and Associates   (United States)

^b Berkley ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Natural resource damage assessment; Scope test

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; NATURAL RESOURCE; TESTING METHOD;

EID: 84869116330     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.003     Document Type: Short Survey

References (121)

1. Ahearn M., Boyle K., Hellerstein D. Designing a contingent valuation study to estimate the benefits of the conservation reserve program. Handbook of Contingent Valuation 2006, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton. A. Alberini, J. Kahn (Eds.).
2. Alvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N., Wright R.E., Macmillan D. Estimating the benefits of agri-environmental policy: econometric issues in open-ended contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1999, 42(1):23-43.
3. Amiran E.Y., Hagan D.A. The scope trials: variation in sensitivity to scope and WTP with directionally bounded utility functions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2010, 59:293-301.
4. Araña J.E., León C.J. Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects. Ecological Economics 2008, 66:700-711.
5. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation 1993, (http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/cvblue.pdf).
6. Arrow K., Leamer E.E., Schuman H., Solow R. Comments of Proposed NOAA Scope Test, Appendix D of Comments of Proposed NOAA/DOI Regulations on Natural Resource Damage Assessment 1994, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
7. Bandara R., Tisdell C. Changing abundance of elephants and willingness to pay for their conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 2005, 76:47-59.
8. Banzhaf H.S., Burtraw D., Evans D., Krupnick A. Valuation of natural resource improvements in the Adirondacks. Land Economics 2006, 82(3):445-464. (August).
9. Bateman I.J. Valid value estimates and value estimate validation: better methods and better testing for stated preference research. The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation 2011, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham UK. J. Bennett (Ed.).
10. Bateman I.J., Cole M., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Hadley D., Poe G.L. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2004, 47:71-93.
11. Bateman I.J., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Navrud S., Poe G.L., Ready R.C., Riera P., Ryan M., Vossler C.A. Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquatic Sciences 2005, 67:274-291.
12. Bateman I.J., Cameron M.P., Tsoumas A. Investigating the characteristics of stated preferences for reducing the impacts of air pollution: a contingent valuation experiment. Environmental Economics, Experimental Methods 2008, Routledge, London. T.L. Cherry, S. Kroll, J.F. Shogren (Eds.).
13. Bell J., Huber J., Viscusi W.K. Voter-weighted environmental preferences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2009, 28(4):655-671.
14. Bennett J., Morrison M., Blamey R. Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1998, 42(2):131-148.
15. Bergstrom J.C., Dillman B.L., Stoll J.R. Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 1985, 17(1):139-149. (July).
16. Berrens R.P., Ganderton P., Silva C.L. Valuing the protection of minimum instream flows in New Mexico. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1996, 21(2):294-309.
17. Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., Silva C.L., Brookshire D., McKee M. Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. Journal of Environmental Management 2000, 58:73-90.
18. Binger B.R., Copple R.F., Hoffman E. The use of contingent valuation methodology in natural resource damage assessments: legal fact and economic fiction. Northwestern University Law Review 1995, 89(3):1029-1053.
19. Bliem M., Getzner M. Valuation of Ecological Restoration Benefits in the Danube River Basin Using Stated Preference Methods-Report on the Austrian Case Study Results. Institute for Advanced Studies Carinthia 2008, Department of Economics, Klagenfurt University, Klagenfurt, Austria.
20. Blomquist G.C., Whitehead J.C. Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 1998, 20(2):179-196.
21. Bowker J.M., Didychuk D.D. Estimation of the nonmarket benefits of agricultural land retention in eastern Canada. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 1994, 23(2):218-225.
22. Boyle K.J., Welsh M.P., Bishop R.C. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1993, 25S:8064-8099.
23. Boyle K.J., Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Hudson S.P. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 27:64-83.
24. Brookshire D.S., Eubanks L.S., Randall A. Estimating option prices and existence values for wildlife resources. Land Economics 1983, 59(1):1-15.
25. Brown T.C., Barro S.C., Manfredo M.J., Peterson G.L. Does better information about the good avoid embedding effect?. Journal of Environmental Management 1995, 44:1-10.
26. Brown T.C., Duffield J.W. Testing part-whole valuation effects in contingent valuation of instream flow protection. Water Resources Research 1995, 31(9):2341-2351.
27. Carson R.T. Contingent valuation 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. R.J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene, N. Schwartz (Eds.).
28. Carson R., Hanneman W.M. Contingent valuation. Handbook of Environmental Economics 2005, vol. 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, (Chapter 17). K.G. Mäler, J.R. Vincent (Eds.).
29. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. Public preferences toward environmental risks: the case of trihalomethanes. Handbook of Contingent Valuation 2006, Edward Elgar Publishing, Brookfield, VT. A. Alberini, D. Bjornstad, J. Kahn (Eds.).
30. Carson R.T., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37:181-210.
31. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C., Ruud P.A. Valuing air quality improvements: simulating a hedonic equation in the context of a contingent valuation scenario. Visibility and Fine Particles 1990, Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA. C. Mathi (Ed.).
32. Carson R.T., Hanemann W.M., Kopp R.J., Krosnick J.A., Mitchell R.C., Presser S., Ruud P.A., Smith V.K. Prospective interim lost use value due to PCB and DDT contamination in the Southern California Bight. Report to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1994.
33. Carson R.T., Wilks L., Imber D. Valuing the preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone. Oxford Economic Papers 1994, 46:727-749.
34. Chapman D.J., Bishop R.C., Hanemann W.M., Kanninen B.J., Krosnick J.A., Morey E.R., Tourangeau R. Natural resource damages associated with aesthetic and ecosystem injuries to Oklahoma's Illinois River System and Tenkiller Lake. Expert Report for State of Oklahoma 2009, vol. 1. (available at https://pcl.uscourts.gov/search (Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods Inc., No. 4:05-cv-329 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 13, 2009), Docket No. 1853-4, exhibit D). The public-use copy from this site is also available at http://elsa.berkeley/edu/~train/chapman.pdf).
35. Chestnut L.G., Rowe R.D. Preservation Values for Visibility Protection at the National Parks. Draft Final Report Prepared for USEPA 1990, RCG/Hagler-Bailly Inc., Boulder, CO.
36. Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G. A Qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation survey rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good. Journal of Economic Psychology 2003, 24:65-75.
37. Choe K., Whittington D., Lauria D.T. The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Economics 1996, 72(4):519-537.
38. Christie M. A comparison of alternative contingent valuation elicitation treatments for the evaluation of complex environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Management 2001, 62(3):255-269.
39. Colombo S., Calatrava-Requena J., Hanley N. Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecological Economics 2006, 58:850-861.
40. Cooper P., Poe G.L., Bateman I.J. The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecological Economics 2004, 50:69-82.
41. Day B., Mourato S. Willingness to pay for water quality maintenance in Chinese Rivers. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 1998, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment University College London and University of East Anglia.
42. Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Hudson S.P., Wilson K.N., Boyle K.J. Measuring Nonuse Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy. Research Triangle Institute Monograph 92-1 1992, Research Triangle Park, NC.
43. Diamond P.A. Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, 30:337-347.
44. Diamond P.A., Hausman J.A., Leonard G.K., Denning M.A. Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. Contingent Valuation, A Critical Assessment 1993, 41-89. Elsevier, Amsterdam. J.A. Hausman (Ed.).
45. Douglas A.J., Taylor J.G. The economic value of Trinity River water. Water Resources Development 1999, 15(3):309-322.
46. Duffield J., Neher C. A contingent valuation assessment of Montana waterfowl hunting. Report Prepared for the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife, and Parks, Montana Bioeconomics, Missoula, MT 1991.
47. Dupont D.P. CVM embedding effects when there are active, potentially active and passive users of environmental goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 2003, 25:319-341.
48. Eom Y.-S., Larson D.M. Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information. Journal of Economics and Environmental Management 2006, 52:501-516.
49. Fischhoff B., Quadrel M.J., Kamlet M., Loewenstein G., Dawes R., Fischbeck P., Klepper S., Leland J., Stroh P. Embedding effects: stimulus representation and response mode. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1993, 6:211-234.
50. Gerrans P. An Economic Valuation of the Jandakot Wetlands. Occasional Paper No. 1 1994, Edith Cowan University.
51. Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B., Johnson R.L. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. Journal of Environmental Management 1999, 56:221-229.
52. Goodman S.L., Seabrooke W., Jaffry S.A. Considering conservation value in economic appraisals of coastal resources. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1998, 41(3):313-336.
53. Halstead J.M., Stevens T.H., Harper W., Hill L.B. Electricity deregulation and the valuation of visibility loss in wilderness areas: a research note. The Journal of Regional Policy Analysis 2004, 34(1):85-95.
54. Hanemann W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, 8(4):19-43.
55. Hanemann M. The Bird Study Revisited. Presentation 2005, U.C., Berkeley.
56. Hanemann M., Loomis J., Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1991, 73(4):1256-1263.
57. Hanley N., Kristom B. What's it worth? Exploring value uncertainty using interval questions in contingent valuation. Working Paper 2002.
58. Hanley N., Schläpfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management 2003, 68:297-304.
59. Heberlein T.A., Wilson M.A., Bishop R.C., Schaeffer N.C. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 50:1-22.
60. Hite D., Hudson D., Intarapapong W. Willingness to pay for water quality improvements: the case of precision application technology. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2002, 27(2):433-449.
61. Hoevenagel R. The validity of the contingent valuation method: perfect and regular embedding. Environmental and Resource Economics 1996, 7:57-78.
62. Holmes T.P., Bergstrom J.C., Huszar E., Kask S.B., Orr F. Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics 2004, 49:19-30.
63. Huang J.-C., Haab T.C., Whitehead J.C. Willingness to pay for quality improvements: should revealed and stated preference data be combined?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 34:240-255.
64. Kahneman D. Comments by Professor Daniel Kahneman. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method 1986, 185-194. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa. R. Cummings, D. Brookshire, W. Schulze (Eds.).
65. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22:57-70.
66. Kahneman D., Ritov I. Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: a study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1994, 9:5-38.
67. Kemp M.A., Maxwell C. Exploring a budget context for contingent valuation estimates. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment 1993, 217-269. Elsevier, Amsterdam. J.A. Hausman (Ed.).
68. Krieger, D.J., 1994. The economic value of environmental risk information: theory and application to the Michigan Sport Fisher. Dissertation, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor, MI, University Microfilms International.
69. Le Goffe Ph. The benefits of improvements in coastal water quality: a contingent approach. Journal of Environment Management 1995, 45:305-317.
70. Loomis J.B., Larson D.M. Total economic values of increasing gray whale populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Marine Resource Economics 1994, 9:275-286.
71. Loomis J., Ekstrand E. Economic benefits of critical habitat for theMexican spotted owl: a scope test using a multiple-bounded contingent valuation survey. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1997, 22(2):356-366.
72. Loomis J., González-Cabán A. A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire. Ecological Economics 1998, 25:315-322.
73. Loomis J., Lockwood M., DeLacy T. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1993, 24:44-55.
74. Loomis J., Hung L.T., González-Cabán A. Willingness to pay function for two fuel treatments to reduce wildfire acreage burned: a scope test and comparison of White and Hispanic households. Forest Policy and Economics 2009, 11:155-160.
75. Macmillan D.C., Duff E.I. Estimating the non-market costs and benefits of native woodland restoration using the contingent valuation method. Forestry 1998, 71(3):247-259.
76. Macmillan D., Hanley N., Buckland S. A contingent valuation study of uncertain environmental gains. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 1996, 43(5):519-533.
77. Magnussen K. Valuation of reduced water pollution using the contingent valuation method-testing for amenity misspecification. Pricing the European Environment 1992, Oxford University Press, Oxford. S. Navrud (Ed.).
78. McClelland G.H., Schulze W.D., Lazo J.K., Waldman D.M., Doyle J.K., Elliott S.R., Irwin J.R. Methods for measuring non-use values: a contingent valuation study of groundwater cleanup. Report Prepared Under EPA Cooperative Agreement CR815183 1992, (October).
79. McDaniels T.L., Gregory R., Arvai J., Chuenpagdee R. Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 2003, 46:33-46.
80. McFadden D. Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76(4):689-708. (November).
81. Navrud S. Estimating social benefits of environmental improvements from reduced acid rain deposition: a contingent valuation survey. Valuation Methods and Policy Making in Environmental Economics 1989, Elsevier, Amsterdam. H. Folmer, E.C. van Ierland (Eds.).
82. Nielsen J.S., Kjaer T. Does question order influence sensitivity to scope? Empirical findings from a web-based contingent valuation study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2011, 54(3):369-381.
83. Nunes P.A.L.D., Schokkaert E. Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 45:231-245.
84. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Valuation of wildlife: revising some additional considerations for scope tests. Contemporary Economic Policy 2009, 27(2):236-250.
85. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies. Resource and Energy Economics 2011, 33:706-724.
86. Poe G., Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 87(2):353-365.
87. Pope C.A., Jones J.W. Value of wilderness designation in Utah. Journal of Environmental Management 1990, 30:157-174.
88. Pouta E. Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 2005, 7:539-550.
89. Powe N.A., Bateman I.J. Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Economics 2004, 80(2):258-271.
90. Ready R.C., Berger M.C., Blomquist G.C. Measuring amenity benefits from farmland: hedonic pricing vs. contingent valuation. Growth and Change 1997, 28:438-458.
91. Riddel M., Loomis J. Joint estimation of multiple CVM scenarios under a double bounded questioning format. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 12:77-98.
92. Roberts K.J., Thompson M.E., Pawlyk P.W. Contingent valuation of recreational diving at petroleum rigs, Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1985, 114(2):214-219.
93. Rollins K., Lyke A. The case for diminishing marginal existence values. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998, 36:324-366.
94. Romer A.U., Pommerehne W.W., Feld L.P. Revealing preferences for reductions of public risks: an application of the CV approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1998, 41(4):477-503.
95. Rowe R.D., Shaw W.D., Schulze W. Nestucca oil spill. Natural Resource Damages: Law and Economics 1992, 527-554. John Wiley, New York. K.M. Ward, J.W. Duffield (Eds.).
96. Samples K.C., Hollyer J.R. Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory, and Applications 1990, 177-192. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. R.L. Johnson, G.V. Johnson (Eds.).
97. Schkade D.A., Payne J.W. 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 1994, 26:88-109.
98. Schulze W.D., McClelland G.H., Lazo J.K., Rowe R.D. Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values. Resource and Energy Economics 1998, 20:163-178.
99. Smith V.K. Pricing what is priceless: a status report on non-market valuation of environmental resources. The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1997, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K. H. Folmer, T. Tietenberg (Eds.).
100. Smith V.K., Osborne L.L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a scope test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, 31:287-301.
101. Smith V.K., Zhang X., Palmquist R.B. Marine debris, beach quality, and non-market values. Environmental and Resource Economics 1997, 10:223-247.
102. Smith A.E., Kemp M.A., Savage T.H., Taylor C.L. Methods and results from a new survey of values for eastern regional haze improvements. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2005, 55:1767-1779.
103. Stanley D.L. Local perception of public goods: recent assessments of willingness-to-pay for endangered species. Contemporary Economic Policy 2005, 23(2):165-179.
104. Stevens T.H., Benin S., Larson J.S. Public attitudes and values for wetland conservation in New England. Wetlands 1995, 15(3):226-231.
105. Stevens T.H., DeCoteau N.E., Willis C.E. Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Economics 1997, 73(1):140-148.
106. Streever W.J., Callaghan-Perry M., Searles A., Stevens T., Svoboda P. Public attitudes and values for wetland conservation in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 1998, 54(1):1-14.
107. Svedsäter H. Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: test of perfect and regular embedding. Journal of Economic Psychology 2000, 21:605-623.
108. Tanguay M., Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Phillips W., White W. A socio-economic evaluation of woodland caribou in northwestern Saskatchewan. Project Report 93-04, Interim Project Report 1993.
109. Train K. Comments of Chapman et al. (2009): Inadequate Response to Scope while Passing the Scope Test. Working Paper 2012, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
110. Veisten K., Hoen H.F., Navrud S., Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management 2004, 73:317-331.
111. Walsh R., Loomis J., Gillman R. Valuing option, existence, and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Economics 1984, 60(1):14-29.
112. Welsh M.P., Bishop R.C., Phillips M.L., Baumgartner R.M. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Non-use Value Study. Final Report Prepared for Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Non-use Value Committee 1995, Hagler-Bailly Consulting, Madison, WI.
113. White P.C.L., Gregory K.W., Lindley P.J., Richards G. Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biological Conservation 1997, 82:345-354.
114. Whitehead J.C. Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: implications for valuing a Sea Turtle Protection Programme. Applied Economics 1992, 24:981-988.
115. Whitehead J., Finney S. Willingness to pay for submerged maritime cultural resources. Journal of Cultural Economics 2003, 27(3):231-240. (November).
116. Whitehead J.C., Cherry T.L. Willingness to pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resource and Energy Economics 2007, 29:247-261.
117. Whitehead J.C., Haab T.C., Huang J.-C. Part-whole bias in contingent valuation: will scope effects be detected with inexpensive survey methods?. Southern Economic Journal 1998, 65(1):160-168.
118. Whitehead J., Groothuis P., Southwick R., Foster-Turley P. Measuring the economic benefits of Saginaw Bay coastal marsh with revealed and stated preference methods. Journal of Great Lakes Research 2009, 35(3):430-437.
119. Whittington D., Choe K., Lauria D. The effect of giving respondents 'time to think' on tests of scope: an experiment in Calamba, Philippines. Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods 1997, Kluwer, Boston. R.J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene, N. Schwartz (Eds.).
120. Wilson, M.A., 2000. Rethinking scope sensitivity and contingent valuation surveys: strong environmental attitudes and contingent economic values. Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, UMI Number: 9981890.
121. Wu P. Substitution and complementarity in commodity space: benefit evaluation of multidimensional environmental policy. Academia Economic Papers 1993, 21(1):151-182. (March).