Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism

Contents:

Author Info

  • Neil A. Powe
  • Ian J. Bateman

Abstract

This paper considers the use of contingent valuation to estimate non-market benefits from separately valued nested goods. Survey respondents were asked referendum WTP questions regarding either a scheme to protect the “whole” area of a wetland or a scheme to protect some nested “part” sub-area. The survey design permitted firstresponse testing and comparison of part and whole values revealed mixed evidence of scope sensitivity. However, allowing for variation in the degree to which differing schemes are considered to be realistic revealed highly significant scope sensitivity. These results illustrate the need for a detailed understanding of the preferences and beliefs of respondents when performing scope sensitivity tests.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/85/2/258
Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 80 (2004)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 258-271

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:80:y:2004:i:2:p:258-271

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Mikael Svensson, 2009. "Precautionary behavior and willingness to pay for a mortality risk reduction: Searching for the expected relationship," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 65-85, August.
  2. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
  3. Andrea M. Leiter & Gerald J. Pruckner, . "Proportionality of willingness to pay to small changes in risk - The impact of attitudinal factors in scope tests," Working Papers, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck 2007-30, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
  4. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
  5. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.
  6. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Martinsen, Louise & Hasler, Berit & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2011. "Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1170-1177, April.
  7. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "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 E," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
  8. Svensson, Mikael & Vredin Johansson, Maria, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Private and Public Safety: Why the Difference?," Working Papers, Örebro University, School of Business 2007:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
  9. Andrea M. Leiter & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2006. "Proportionality of Willingness to Pay to Small Risk Changes – The Impact of Attitudinal Factors in Scope Tests," Working Papers, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei 2006.90, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  10. Morgan, O. Ashton & Huth, William L., 2011. "Using revealed and stated preference data to estimate the scope and access benefits associated with cave diving," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-118, January.
  11. Glenk, Klaus & Fischer, Anke, 2010. "Insurance, prevention or just wait and see? Public preferences for water management strategies in the context of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2279-2291, September.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:80:y:2004:i:2:p:258-271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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