IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cudasp/121335.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Prior Information, General Information, and Specific Information in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Risks: The Case of Nitrates in Groundwater

Author

Listed:
  • Poe, Gregory L.
  • Bishop, Richard C.

Abstract

Information, or lack thereof, is an important input in value formation and the distribution of contingent values. Although most conceptualizations of the contingent valuation process stress that information provision should be 'adequate,' very little empirical research has been devoted to assessing the effects of different information flows on contingent values and to establishing a standard of information adequacy for contingent valuation studies. The need for such research is particularly cogent for valuing the benefits of reducing environmental risks, a non-market good which is increasingly being valued with the contingent valuation method. Using nitrates in groundwater as a case study, this paper evaluates and compares health risk perceptions and the distribution of contingent values for groundwater protection associated with three different levels of information provision. In the first level, no information about nitrates or personal exposure was provided to the participants, an approach which reflects the philosophy that values should be based on prior information and preferences. The second information level provided participants with general information about the health effects of nitrates, sources of nitrate contamination, government standards for nitrates, indicators of the distribution of nitrate levels in local wells, and opportunities for averting behavior. The third level of information flow provided the general information packet along with specific information about actual nitrate levels found in participants' wells. The primary results of this research are that individuals need afull-information set that includes both general and specific information to identify their own best interests with respect to groundwater protection programs, and that the provision of general information alone appears to lead to biased estimates of willingness to pay for groundwater protection. These results establish a full-information standard for future contingent valuation research of groundwater protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Prior Information, General Information, and Specific Information in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Risks: The Case of Nitrates in Groundwater," Staff Papers 121335, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:cudasp:121335
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.121335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/121335/files/Cornell%20SP%2093-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.121335?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. Shogren, Jason F. & Crocker, Thomas D. & Forster, Bruce A., 1991. "Valuing Potential Groundwater Protection Benefits," Staff General Research Papers Archive 335, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
    3. Kevin J. Boyle, 1989. "Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(1), pages 57-63.
    4. Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1992. "Existence Values in Benefit-Cost Analysis and Damage Assessment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(4), pages 405-417.
    5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    6. Poe, Gregory L. & Lossin, Eric K. & Welsh, Michael P., 1993. "A Convolutions Approach To Measuring The Differences In Simulated Distributions: Application To Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 128027, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    7. Bergstrom, John C. & Stoll, John R., 1989. "Application Of Experimentatal Economics Concepts And Precepts To Cvm Field Survey Procedures," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, July.
    8. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & F. Reed Johnson & Ann Fisher, 1990. "Can public information programs affect risk perceptions?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 41-59.
    9. Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. "Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-184, June.
    10. Shogren, Jason F. & Crocker, Thomas D., 1991. "Risk, self-protection, and ex ante economic value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Quiggin, John, 1992. "Risk, self-protection and ex ante economic value--some positive results," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 40-53, July.
    12. Viscusi, W Kip & O'Connor, Charles J, 1984. "Adaptive Responses to Chemical Labeling: Are Workers Bayesian Decision Makers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 942-956, December.
    13. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop, 1988. "Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 20-28.
    14. Edwards, Steven F., 1988. "Option prices for groundwater protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 475-487, December.
    15. Smith, V Kerry & Johnson, F Reed, 1988. "How Do Risk Perceptions Respond to Information? The Case of Radon," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(1), pages 1-8, February.
    16. Karl C. Samples & John A. Dixon & KMarcia M. Gowen, 1986. "Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 306-312.
    17. Grether, David M. & Wilde, Louis L., 1983. "Consumer choice and information : New experimental evidence," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 115-144.
    18. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    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. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2015. "The Relative Weights of Direct and Indirect Experiences in the Formation of Environmental Risk Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 318-331, February.

    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. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    3. Poe, Gregory L. & Lossin, Eric K. & Welsh, Michael P., 1992. "A Convolutions Approach to Measuring the Differences in Benefit Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Staff Papers 200545, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    4. Rondeau, Daniel & Rollins, Kimberly S. & Martin, Patrick, 1993. "Costly Information and Estimating Existence Values," Department of Agricultural Economics and Business 258751, University of Guelph.
    5. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    6. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    7. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    10. Georges Dionne & Claude Fluet & Denise Desjardins, 2007. "Predicted risk perception and risk-taking behavior: The case of impaired driving," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 237-264, December.
    11. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    12. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    13. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    14. Boyle, Kevin J., 1990. "Dichotomous-Choice, Contingent-Valuation Questions: Functional Form Is Important," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-7, October.
    15. Whittington, Dale & Hua Wang, 2000. "Willingness to pay for air quality improvements in Sofia, Bulgaria," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2280, The World Bank.
    16. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    17. Rekola, Mika & Pouta, Eija, 2005. "Public preferences for uncertain regeneration cuttings: a contingent valuation experiment involving Finnish private forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 635-649, May.
    18. Konstantinos Drakos & Catherine Mueller, 2014. "On the Determinants of Terrorism Risk Concern in Europe," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 291-310, June.
    19. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2015. "The Relative Weights of Direct and Indirect Experiences in the Formation of Environmental Risk Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 318-331, February.
    20. Tisdell, Clement A., 2003. "Influences of Knowledge of Wildlife Species on Patterns of Willingness to pay for their Conservation," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48972, University of Queensland, School of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:cudasp:121335. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dacorus.html .

    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.