Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

Contents:

Author Info

  • Michael Ahlheim
  • Benchaphun Ekasingh
  • Oliver Frör
  • Jirawan Kitchaincharoen
  • Andreas Neef
  • Chapika Sangkapitux
  • Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul

    ()

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

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://www.uni-hohenheim.de/RePEc/hoh/papers/283.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic 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.

as in new window
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.uni-hohenheim.de/institution/institut-fuer-economics-11
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: contingent valuation;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

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.:
as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. Ahlheim, Michael, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the budget constraint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 205-211, November.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Lorna Philip & Douglas MacMillan, 2005. "Exploring Values, Context and Perceptions in Contingent Valuation Studies: The CV Market Stall Technique and Willingness to Pay for Wildlife Conservation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 257-274.
  6. Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & William D. Schulze & Jeremy Clark, 2000. "Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 54-67.
  7. 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, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 97-112.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Barbara J. Kanninen & M. Sami Khawaja, 1999. "Measuring Goodness of Fit for the Double-Bounded Logit Model: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(1), pages 238-240.
  12. 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, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 1-16.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Ahlheim, Michael & Fror, Oliver, 2003. "Valuing the non-market production of agriculture," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(8).
  16. 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.
  17. Wendy Kenyon & Nick Hanley & Ceara Nevin, 2001. "Citizens' juries: an aid to environmental valuation?," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 19(4), pages 557-566, August.
  18. Michael Kaplowitz, 2000. "Identifying ecosystem services using multiple methods: Lessons from the mangrove wetlands of Yucatan, Mexico," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 169-179, June.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Kathleen M. Painter & Robert Douglas Scott & Philip R. Wandschneider & Kenneth L. Casavant, 2002. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure User and Nonuser Benefits: An Application to Public Transit," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 394-409.
  22. 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, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
  28. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics," Staff General Research Papers 12330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  29. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
  30. 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.
  31. Herriges, Joseph A., 1999. "Measuring Goodness of Fit for the Double-Bounded Logit Model: Comment," Staff General Research Papers 1502, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. David A. Harpman & Michael P. Welsh, 1999. "Measuring Goodness of Fit for the Double-Bounded Logit Model: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(1), pages 235-237.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Frör, Oliver, 2008. "Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence using cognitive psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 570-581, December.

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:hoh:hohdip:283. 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: (Ulrike Berberich) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Ulrike Berberich to update the entry or send us the correct address.

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.