Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators
AbstractStated preference surveys often provide ambiguous descriptions of ecological commodities, yielding welfare estimates that have unclear interpretations and cannot be linked to measurable outcomes. This paper proposes guidelines to promote ecological content validity in survey scenarios and defensible use of ecological information for welfare analysis. These guidelines are illustrated through an application to migratory fish restoration. Content validity is evaluated vis-á-vis norms for communication of ecological changes in the ecological literature. Findings suggest that less structured treatment of ecological commodities may lead to an omission of information that is relevant to respondents and essential for valid welfare estimation.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.
Volume (Year): 88 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
- Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.