Cognitive Processes in Stated Preference Methods
In: Handbook of Environmental Economics
AbstractCognitive psychology is best known, to many environmental economists, through the filter of acrimonious debates over the validity of contingent valuation methods (CVM). Psychologists' views on CVM reflect concerns that are deeply rooted in their profession's history and theories. Although psychologists have participated in some CVM studies, their roles have rarely allowed them to present a comprehensive design philosophy, illustrated in actual studies. This chapter sets psychologists' critiques and alternatives within a general cognitive perspective on value elicitation, including stated preferences for environmental goods. It begins with a historical review, organized around two converging streams of psychological research. One stream leads from psychophysics to attitude research. The second leads from decision theory to decision analysis and behavioral decision research. The next section reports some environmental valuation studies arising from each tradition. These studies do not directly monetize environmental goods. However, they can still directly inform policies that do not require monetization and indirectly inform policies that do, by shaping studies with that ambition. The following section considers the role of cognitive studies in helping investigators to know what issues matter to people and present them comprehensibly. The concluding section of the chapter presents a cognitive approach to stated preference methods for environmental values - one that could be developed most fully in collaboration with economists. It is built around a cognitive task analysis of the four main elements in any evaluation process: (a) specifying the valuation question, (b) understanding its terms, (c) articulating a value for that specific question (from more general basic values), and (d) expressing that value in a public form.
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.
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.
This chapter was published in:
This item is provided by Elsevier in its series Handbook of Environmental Economics with number 2-18.
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookseriesdescription.cws_home/BS_HE/description
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Baruch Fischhoff & Scott Atran & Noam Fischhoff, 2007. "Counting casualties: A framework for respectful, useful records," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, February.
- David Aadland & Arthur J. Caplan, 2003.
"Cheap Talk Revisited: New Evidence from CVM,"
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
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.