IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v51y2000i1p122-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Comment

Author

Listed:
  • Riccardo Scarpa

Abstract

Following Boxall et al. (1996), Hanley et al. (1998) compare welfare measures derived from contingent valuation (CV) to those derived from choice experiment (CE). Using the same Gumbel distribution assumption of the unobserved component of indirect utility, they estimate welfare measures that they expect to be the same. However, they fail to acknowledge that the indirect utility specifications underlying the two sets of estimates differ. Hence, they do not compare like with like and the difference in welfare estimates cannot be definitely attributed to the difference in the two stated preference methods employed. This comment argues that their econometric analysis is flawed and does not support many of their concluding remarks. Further, disagreement is expressed with their alleged findings on the potential performance of CV in benefit transfer studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Riccardo Scarpa, 2000. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Comment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 122-128, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:51:y:2000:i:1:p:122-128
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01213.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01213.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01213.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Chuan-Zhong Li, 1996. "Semiparametric Estimation of the Binary Choice Model for Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 462-473.
    3. Randall, Alan & Stoll, John R, 1980. "Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 449-455, June.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    5. Catherine L. Kling & Cynthia J. Thomson, 1996. "The Implications of Model Specification for Welfare Estimation in Nested Logit Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 103-114.
    6. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    7. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-597, September.
    8. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    9. Horowitz, Joel L, 1992. "A Smoothed Maximum Score Estimator for the Binary Response Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 505-531, May.
    10. Chen, Heng Z. & Randall, Alan, 1997. "Semi-nonparametric estimation of binary response models with an application to natural resource valuation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1-2), pages 323-340.
    11. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Creel, Michael & Loomis, John, 1997. "Semi-nonparametric Distribution-Free Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 341-358, March.
    13. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    14. Manski, Charles F., 1975. "Maximum score estimation of the stochastic utility model of choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 205-228, August.
    15. Richard C. Ready & Dayuan Hu, 1995. "Statistical Approaches to the Fat Tail Problem for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 491-499.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    2. Annunziata Vita, 2012. "La Valutazione Economica dei Parchi Marini. Il Caso "Punta Infreschi"," Working Papers 3_220, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche, Università degli Studi di Salerno.
    3. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    4. Figini, Paolo & Castellani, Massimiliano & Vici, Laura, 2007. "Estimating Tourist Externalities on Residents: A Choice Modeling Approach to the Case of Rimini," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 9104, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Martin Whitby, 2000. "Challenges and Options for the UK Agri‐Environment: Presidential Address," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 317-332, September.
    6. repec:sep:wpaper:3_320 is not listed on IDEAS

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    4. Henry, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ron & Loomis, John, 2018. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Estimating Willingness To Pay for River Recreation Site Attributes," MPRA Paper 89842, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Henry-Osorio, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ronald C., 2012. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Modeling Binary Choices: Estimating Willingness to Pay for Recreation Site Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Huang, Ju-Chin & Nychka, Douglas W. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2008. "Semi-parametric discrete choice measures of willingness to pay," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 91-94, October.
    9. José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    10. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    11. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
    12. Álvarez Díaz, Marcos & González Gómez, Manuel & Saavedra González, Ángeles & De Uña Álvarez, Jacobo, 2010. "On dichotomous choice contingent valuation data analysis: Semiparametric methods and Genetic Programming," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 145-156, April.
    13. Tran Huu Tuan, 2007. "Valuing the Economic Benefits of Preserving Cultural Heritage: The My Son Sanctuary World Heritage Site in Vietnam," EEPSEA Research Report rr2007072, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jul 2007.
    14. Silvia Ferrini & Carlo Fezzi, 2012. "Generalized Additive Models for Nonmarket Valuation via Revealed or Stated Preference Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 782-802.
    15. John Crooker & Joseph Herriges, 2004. "Parametric and Semi-Nonparametric Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay in the Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(4), pages 451-480, April.
    16. Gonzalez, Matias & Leon, Carmelo J., 2003. "Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 159-169, June.
    17. Gómez-Valenzuela, Víctor & Alpízar, Francisco & Bonilla, Solhanlle & Franco-Billini, Carol, 2020. "Mining conflict in the Dominican Republic: The case of Loma Miranda," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    18. Tran Tuan & Stale Navrud, 2007. "Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 51-69, September.
    19. Brey, Raul & Riera, Pere & Mogas, Joan, 2007. "Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 305-312, December.
    20. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:51:y:2000:i:1:p:122-128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.