How are Scope and Adding up Relevant for Benefits Transfer?

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 483-502

  Kling, Catherine L ^a   Phaneuf, Daniel J ^b  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefit cost analysis; Benefits transfer; Nonmarket valuation

Indexed keywords

SITE SELECTION;

BENEFIT FUNCTIONS; BENEFIT TRANSFER; BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS; BENEFITS TRANSFER; CRITICAL STEPS; NON-MARKET VALUATION; STATED PREFERENCES;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ACTIVITY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; EXPLORATION; LITERATURE REVIEW; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 85040026671     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: 15731502     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-017-0208-6     Document Type: Article

References (32)

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
2. Bateman Ian, Munro Alistair, Rhodes Bruce, Starmer Chris, Sugden Robert (1997) Does part-whole Bias exist? An experimental investigation. Econ J 107:322–332
3. Bergstrom JC, Taylor LO (2006) Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: theory and practice. Ecol Econ 60:351–360
4. Carson Richard T (2012) Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. J Econ Perspect 26:27–42
5. Carson R, Flores N, Hanemann WM (1998) Sequencing and valuing public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 36:314–323
6. Desvousges W, Mathews K, Train Kenneth (2012) Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 84:121–128
7. Desvousges W, Mathews K, Train K (2015) An adding-up test on contingent valuation of river and lake quality. Land Econ 91:556–571
8. Diamond Peter A (1996) Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 30:337–347
9. Elbakidze L, Nayga R (2016) Violations of the adding-up test: a non-hypothetical experimental investigation, manuscript
10. Ge J, Kling CL, Herriges JA (2013) How much is clean water worth? valuing water quality improvements using a meta analysis, Iowa State University draft manuscript
11. Hanemann WM (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? Am Econ Rev 81:635–647
12. Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer Nora Cate (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 50:1–22
13. Hoehn J, Randall A (1987) A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 14(3):226–247
14. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE (2003) Willingness to accept, willingness to pay, and the income effect. J Econ Behav Organ. 51:537–545
15. Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (2015) Introduction to benefit transfer methods, chapter 2. In: Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a guide for researchers and practitioners. Springer, Berlin
16. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Iovanna R, Miller CJ, Wardwell Ryan F, Ranson Mathew H (2005) Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Can J Agric Econ 53:221–248
17. Kahneman D (1986) Comments by Professor Daniel Kahneman. In: Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD (eds) Valuing Environmental goods: a state of the art assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Allanheld, Upper Saddle River, pp 185–194
18. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22:57–70
19. Kaul S, Boyle KJ, Kuminoff NV, Parmeter CF, Pope JC (2013) What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity. J Environ Econ Manag 66:90–104
20. Kling CL, Phaneuf DJ, Zhao J (2012) From exxon to BP: has some number become better than no number? J Econ Perspect 26:3–26
21. Newbold SC, Massey DM, Walsh P, Hewitt J (2016) Estimating benefit transfer functions that add up, draft manuscript
22. Ojea E, Loureiro ML (2011) Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies. Resour Energy Econ 33:706–24
23. Phaneuf D, Requate T (2017) A course in environmental economics: theory, policy, and practice. Cambridge University Press
24. Richardson L, Loomis John (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68:1535–1548
25. Rollins K, Lyke A (1998) The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J Environ Econ Manag 36(3):324–344
26. Siikamaki J (2011) Contributions of the US state park system to nature recreation. Proc Ntl Acad Sci 108:14031–14036
27. Smith VK (1992) Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. J Environ Econ Manag 22:71–89
28. Smith VK, Van Houtven G, Pattanayak S (2002) Benefit transfer via preference calibration: ‘prudential algebra’ for policy. Land Econ 78:132–152
29. Van Houtven G, Mansfield C, Phaneuf DJ, von Haefer R, Milstead Bryan, Kenney Melissa A, Reckhow Kenneth H (2014) Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality. Ecol Econ 99:40–52
30. Whitehead JC (2016) Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 128:17–22
31. Whitehead JC, Ashton MO, Huth WL (2015) Benefit transfers with the contingent valuation method,” chapter 7. In: Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a guide for researchers and practitioners. Springer, Berlin
32. Willig RD (1976) Consumer surplus without apology. Am Econ Rev 66:589–597