This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Michael Ahlheim
Benchaphun Ekasingh
Oliver Frör
Jirawan Kitchaincharoen
Andreas Neef
Chapika Sangkapitux
Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul ()

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

In this paper we show how citizen expert groups can be used to improve the design of contingent valuation surveys. The concept of citizen expert groups combines the various advantages of focus groups and of participatory approaches like citizen juries and the market stall method. Using an empirical study in Thailand it is demonstrated that after developing the project scenario and the questionnaire in cooperation with a citizen expert group the result of the study became independent of the interview form used in the survey which was taken as an indicator for the reliability and validity of the study. Testing different elicitation question formats in our survey it showed that with the payment card format face-to-face interviews and mail interviews yielded the same social willingness to pay. A practical consequence of our findings could be that in the future costly face-to-face interviews can be substituted by much cheaper mail interviews in CVM surveys if the payment card format is used for the elicitation question and the whole survey design is optimized following the advice resulting from appropriately organized citizen expert groups.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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://www.uni-hohenheim.de/RePEc/hoh/papers/283.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany in its series Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim with number 283/2007.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 24 pages
Date of creation: 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hoh:hohdip:283

Contact details of provider:
Postal: D-70593 Stuttgart
Phone: 0711/459-22992
Fax: 0711/459-22993
Email:
Web page: http://www.vwl.uni-hohenheim.de/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Ulrike Berberich).

Related research
Keywords: contingent valuation;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics
H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
L3 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise
Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Kaplowitz, Michael D. & Hoehn, John P., 2001. "Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 237-247, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop, 2006. "Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 162-173. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. 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, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Simon Niemeyer & Clive L Spash, 2001. "Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 19(4), pages 567-585, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. W. George Hutchinson & Susan M. Chilton & John Davis, 1995. "Measuring Non-Use Value Of Environmental Goods Using The Contingent Valuation Method: Problems Of Information And Cognition And The Application Of Cognitive Questionnaire Design Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(1), pages 97-112. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Ethier, Robert & Poe, Gregory & Schulze, William & Clark, Jeremy, 1997. "A Comparison Of Hypothetical Phone And Mail Contingent Valuation Responses For Green Pricing Electricity Programs," Working Papers 7245, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  10. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Roy Brouwer & Neil Powe & R. Kerry Turner & Ian J. Bateman & Ian H. Langford, 1999. "Public Attitudes to Contingent Valuation and Public Consultation," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 8(3), pages 325-347, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  16. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. Ahlheim, Michael, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the budget constraint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 205-211, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. Macmillan, Douglas C. & Philip, Lorna & Hanley, Nick & Alvarez-Farizo, Begona, 2002. "Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 49-59, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  20. S. M. Chilton & W. G. Hutchinson, 1999. "Exploring Divergence Between Respondent and Researcher Definitions of the Good in Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 50(1), pages 1-16. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. Herriges, J. A., 1999. "Measuring Goodness of Fit for the Double-Bounded Logit Model: Comment," Staff General Research Papers 1502, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  22. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  23. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  24. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  25. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  26. Begoña Álvarez-Farizo & Nick Hanley, 2006. "Improving the Process of Valuing Non-Market Benefits: Combining Citizens’ Juries with Choice Modelling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 465-478. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS was sponsored from 1997 to 2002 by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-30.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.