Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation

Ecological Economics

Volumn 128, Issue , 2016, Pages 17-22

  Whitehead, John C ^a  

^a APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adding up test; Contingent valuation method; Elasticity; Scope test

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CRUDE OIL; CURRENT; DATA ACQUISITION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HISTORY; OIL SPILL; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84966774624     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.011     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Amiran Edoh Y., Hagen Daniel A. The scope trials: variation in sensitivity to scope and WTP with directionally bounded utility functions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2010, 59(3):293-301.
2. Arrow Kenneth, Solow Robert, Portney Paul R., Leamer Edward E., Radner Roy, Schuman Howard Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation 1993.
3. Arrow Kenneth, Leamer Edward E., Schuman Howard, Solow Robert Appendix D in "Comments on Proposed NOAA/DOI Regulations on Natural Resource Damage Assessment 1994, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (October).
4. Banzhaf Spencer, Burtraw Dallas, Evans David, Krupnick Alan Valuation of Natural Resource Improvements in the Adirondacks 2004, Resources for the Future, (September).
5. Banzhaf H.Spencer, Burtraw Dallas, Evans David, Krupnick Alan Valuation of natural resource improvements in the Adirondacks. Land Econ. 2006, 82(3):445-464.
6. Bateman Ian, Munro Alistair, Rhodes Bruce, Starmer Chris, Sugden Robert Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation. Econ. J. 1997, 107(441):322-332.
7. Berrens Robert P., Bohara Alok K., Silva Carol L., Brookshire D., Mckee Michael Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 58(1):73-90.
8. Boyle Kevin J., Desvousges William H., Johnson F.Reed, Dunford Richard W., Hudson Sara P. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent-valuation studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 27(1):64-83.
9. Cameron Trudy Ann Interval estimates of non-market resource values from referendum contingent valuation surveys. Land Econ. 1991, 67(4):413-421.
10. Cameron Trudy Ann, James Michelle D. Efficient estimation methods for "closed-ended" contingent valuation surveys. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1987, 269-276.
11. Carson Richard T. Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. Chapter 6 (Pages 101-125) in Determining the Value of Non-marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods 1997, Springer, Netherlands. R.J. Kopp, W.W. Pommerehne, N. Schwarz (Eds.).
12. Carson Richard T. Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren't available. J. Econ. Perspect. 2012, 26(4):27-42.
13. Carson Richard T., Mitchell Robert Cameron The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1993, 75(5):1263-1267.
14. Carson Richard T., Mitchell Robert Cameron Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1995, 28(2):155-173.
15. Carson Richard T., Mitchell Robert C., Hanemann W.Michael, Kopp Raymond J., Presser Stanley, Ruud Paul A. A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. No. 6984 1992, University Library of Munich, Germany.
16. Carson Richard T., Mitchell Robert C., Hanemann Michael, Kopp Raymond J., Presser Stanley, Ruud Paul A. Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 25(3):257-286.
17. Chapman D., Bishop R., Hanemann W., Kanninen B., Krosnick J., Morey E., Tourangeau T. Natural resource damages associated with aesthetic and ecosystem injuries to Oklahoma's Illinois river system and Tenkiller Lake, expert report for State of Oklahoma, in Case No. 05-CV-0329-GKF-SAJ 2009, State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods., et al. (In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.).
18. Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Boyle K.J., Hudson S.P., Wilson K.N. Measuring Nonuse Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy. RTI Press Publication No. BK-0001-1009 2010, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. second ed.
19. Desvousges William, Mathews Kristy, Train Kenneth Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 84:121-128. (December).
20. Desvousges William, Mathews Kristy, Train Kenneth An adding-up test on contingent valuations of river and lake quality. Land Econ. 2015, 91:556-571. (August).
21. Desvousges William, Mathews Kristy, Train Kenneth From curious to pragmatically curious: comment on "From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'dubious to hopeless' critique of contingent valuation". Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2016, 38(1):174-182.
22. Diamond Peter A. Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1996, 30:337-347.
23. Diamond Peter A., Hausman Jerry A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8(4):45-64.
24. Diamond Peter A., Hausman Jerry A., Leonard Gregory K., Denning Mike A. Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. Contingent Valuation, A Critical Assessment 1993, 41-89. Elsevier, Amsterdam. J.A. Hausman (Ed.).
25. Elbakidze L., Nayga R. Validating consistency of non-hypothetical experimental auction data: application of the adding-up test in a multi-unit setting. Selected Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association's Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA 2015.
26. Giraud K.L., Loomis John B., Johnson R.L. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. J. Environ. Manag. 1999, 56(3):221-229.
27. Haab Timothy C., Interis Matthew G., Petrolia Daniel R., Whitehead John C. From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'dubious to hopeless' critique of contingent valuation. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2013, 35(4):593-612.
28. Haab Timothy C., Interis Matthew G., Petrolia Daniel R., Whitehead John C. Interesting questions worthy of further study: our reply to Desvousges, Mathews, and Train's (2015) comment on our thoughts (2013) on Hausman's (2012) update of diamond and Hausman's (1994) critique of contingent valuation. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2016, 38(1):183-189.
29. Hanemann W.Michael Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8(4):19-43.
30. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment 1993, Elsevier. J.A. Hausman (Ed.).
31. Hausman Jerry Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J. Econ. Perspect. 2012, 26(4):43-56.
32. Heberlein Thomas A., Wilson Matthew A., Bishop Richard C., Schaeffer Nora Cate Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2005, 50(1):1-22.
33. Kahneman Daniel. Comments. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method 1986, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ. R.G. Cummings, D.S. Brookshire, W.D. Schulze (Eds.).
34. Kahneman Daniel, Knetsch Jack L. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1992, 22(1):57-70.
35. Kling Catherine L., Phaneuf Daniel J., Zhao Jinhua From Exxon to BP: has some number become better than no number?. J. Econ. Perspect. 2012, 26(4):3-26.
36. Lindhjem Henrik, Grimsrud Kristine, Navrud Ståle, Kolle Stein Olav The social benefits and costs of preserving forest biodiversity and ecosystem services. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2015, 4(2):202-222.
37. Longo Alberto, Hoyos David, Markandya Anil Sequence effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs using the contingent valuation method. Land Econ. 2015, 91(1):20-35.
38. Martin-Ortega Julia, Mesa-Jurado M.Azahara, Berbel Julio Revisiting the impact of order effects on sensitivity to scope: a contingent valuation of a common-pool resource. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 66(3):705-726.
39. McCloskey Deirdre N., Ziliak Stephen T. The standard error of regressions. J. Econ. Lit. 1996, 34(1):97-114.
40. McFadden Daniel Contingent valuation and social choice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76(4):689-708.
41. Metcalfe Paul J., Baker William, Andrews Kevin, Atkinson Giles, Bateman Ian J., Butler Sarah, Carson Richard T., East Jo, Gueron Yves, Sheldon Rob, Train Kenneth An assessment of the nonmarket benefits of the Water Framework Directive for households in England and Wales. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48(3).
42. Mitchell Robert, Carson Richard Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
43. Portney Paul R. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8(3):3-17.
44. Randall Alan Beyond the crucial experiment: mapping the performance characteristics of contingent valuation. Resour. Energy Econ. 1998, 20(2):197-206.
45. Richardson Leslie, Loomis John The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68(5):1535-1548.
46. Rollins Kimberly, Lyke Audrey The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1998, 36(3):324-344.
47. Smith V.Kerry Environmental Policy Under Reagan's Executive Order: The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis 1984.
48. Smith V.Kerry Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1992, 22(1):71-89.
49. Smith V.Kerry Of birds and books: more on hypothetical referenda. J. Polit. Econ. 1999, 107(1):197-200.
50. Train Kenneth Comments on Chapman et al. (2009): Inadequate Response to Scope while Passing the Scope Test 2012, (January 24).
51. Whitehead John C., Cherry Todd L. Willingness-to-pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resour. Energy Econ. 2007, 29(4):247-261.
52. Whitehead John C., Haab Timothy C. Contingent valuation method. Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics 2013, Elsevier. J. Shogren (Ed.).
53. Whitehead John C., Haab Timothy C., Huang Ju-Chin Part-whole bias in contingent valuation: will scope effects be detected with inexpensive survey methods?. South. Econ. J. 1998, 160-168.