IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/117226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning

Author

Listed:
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.
  • Morrison, Mark
  • Blamey, Russell K.

Abstract

One way of assessing the validity of results generated through the application of the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is through the analysis of response sensitivity to factors expected to have an influence. Scope testing involves presenting at least two alternative impact scenarios to population sub‐samples and testing for differences between the estimates generated. Most applications of the CVM in Australia have not involved scope testing and those that have yielded mixed results. These studies are reviewed. The results of scope sensitivity and other validity tests are presented for a study aimed at estimating the value of environmental damage caused by dryland salinity in the Upper South East of South Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:117226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/117226
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boyle Kevin J. & Desvousges William H. & Johnson F. Reed & Dunford Richard W. & Hudson Sara P., 1994. "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 64-83, July.
    2. Randall, Alan & Hoehn, John P., 1996. "Embedding in Market Demand Systems," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 369-380, May.
    3. Blamey, Russell K. & Common, Mick S. & Quiggin, John C., 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(03), December.
    4. Carson, Richard T., 1995. "Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 148791, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Fischhoff, Baruch & Quadrel, Marilyn Jacobs & Kamlet, Mark & Loewenstain, George & Dawes, Robyn & Fischbeck, Paul & Klepper, Steven & Leland, Jonathan & Stroh, Patrick, 1993. "Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Mode," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 211-234, June.
    6. Kahnemant, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Contingent valuation and the value of public goods: Reply," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 90-94, January.
    7. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    8. Smith, V. Kerry, 1992. "Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 71-89, January.
    9. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
    10. Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
    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. Jeff Bennett, 2005. "Australasian environmental economics: contributions, conflicts and 'cop-outs' ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 243-261, September.
    2. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Dynamic Processes in the Contingent Valuation of an Endangered Mammal Species," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55064, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    3. Lindsay, Sarah & Damania, Richard, 2000. "Valuing New Zealand recreational fishing: An assessment of the validity of contingent valuation method," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 183420, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    5. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    6. Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Morrison, Mark D. & Rose, John M. & Boyle, Kevin J., 2011. "Valuing a multistate river: the case of the River Murray," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), September.
    7. Tuan, Tran Hu & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2008. "Meta-analysis of nature conservation values in Asia & Oceania: Data heterogeneity and benefit transfer issues," MPRA Paper 11470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2008. "Developing a Questionnaire for Valuing Changes in Natural Resource Management in the George Catchment, Tasmania," Research Reports 94807, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.

    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:aareaj:117226. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.