IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v140y2017icp235-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Sensitive Are Environmental Valuations To Economic Downturns?

Author

Listed:
  • Loureiro, Maria L.
  • Loomis, John

Abstract

This paper assesses the temporal stability of willingness to pay estimates (WTP) under changing economic conditions. Specifically, two questions are addressed: a) is WTP stable over time? And b) if it is not, are the changes just driven by socio-economic effects, or something else? In order to investigate these questions, we used data from the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) study conducted after the Prestige oil spill in Spain in 2006, and a second wave of the same survey repeated in 2009, after Spain entered a serious recession. Median WTP estimates dropped from €60.36 in 2006 to €26.92 in 2009 per household, a statistically significant reduction. To investigate the amount of the drop in WTP due to observables versus changes in preferences between 2006 and 2009, we use the 2006 logit WTP coefficient estimates with 2009 levels of the independent variables and we obtain a WTP of €46.37. This estimate is statistically different from the 2009 estimate (€26.92). In the same fashion, by using 2009 logit WTP coefficients with 2006 data, we obtain an estimate of €50.29, also different from the 2006 estimate. Implications of these findings for temporal stability of welfare measures and benefit transfer exercises are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John, 2017. "How Sensitive Are Environmental Valuations To Economic Downturns?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 235-240.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:140:y:2017:i:c:p:235-240
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916301549
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.008?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Whitehead & Thomas J. Hoban, 1999. "Testing for Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation with Time for Changes in Factors Affecting Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 453-465.
    2. K. McConnell* & I. Strand & Sebastián Valdés, 1998. "Testing Temporal Reliability and Carry-over Effect: The Role of Correlated Responses in Test-retest Reliability Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(3), pages 357-374, October.
    3. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe & Polasky, Stephen & Gainutdinova, Olesya, 2003. "Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 261-277, June.
    4. I J Bateman & I H Langford, 1997. "Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(7), pages 1215-1228, July.
    5. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    6. Maria Loureiro & John Loomis & Maria Vázquez, 2009. "Economic Valuation of Environmental Damages due to the Prestige Oil Spill in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 537-553, December.
    7. Aadland, David & Caplan, Arthur J., 2006. "Cheap talk reconsidered: New evidence from CVM," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 562-578, August.
    8. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
    9. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann, & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert C. Mitchell & Stanley Presser & Paul A. Rudd & V. Kerry Smith & Michael Conaway & Kerry Martin, 1997. "Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 151-163.
    10. John B. Loomis, 1989. "Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(1), pages 76-84.
    11. Jeffrey L. Jordan & Abdelmoneim H. Elnagheeb, 1994. "Consequences of Using Different Question Formats in Contingent Valuation: A Monte Carlo Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 97-110.
    12. Stephen D. Reiling & Kevin J. Boyle & Marcia L. Phillips & Mark W. Anderson, 1990. "Temporal Reliability of Contingent Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 128-134.
    13. Loomis, John B., 1990. "Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 78-85, January.
    14. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2008. "Individual sensitivity to framing effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 296-307, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Thomas H. Stevens & homas A. More & Ronald J. Glass, 1994. "Interpretation and Temporal Stability of CV Bids for Wildlife Existence: A Panel Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(3), pages 355-363.
    17. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    18. Matthew E. Kahn & Matthew J. Kotchen, 2010. "Environmental Concern and the Business Cycle: The Chilling Effect of Recession," NBER Working Papers 16241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Heidi Rapp Nilsen, 2024. "Code Red for Humanity: The Role of Business Ethics as We Transgress Planetary Thresholds," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 1-7, January.
    3. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    4. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2020. "When policy implementation failures affect public preferences for environmental goods: Implications for economic analysis in the European water policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Fernando Vidal Gimenez & Claudio Ruiz Mas, 2020. "The Valuation of Recreational Use of Wetlands and the Impact of the Economic Crisis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Cicatiello, Lorenzo & Ercolano, Salvatore & Gaeta, Giuseppe Lucio & Pinto, Mauro, 2020. "Willingness to pay for environmental protection and the importance of pollutant industries in the regional economy. Evidence from Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    7. Wunsch, Andrea & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2022. "A test–retest analysis of stated preferences in uncertain times," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 725-736.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Maria L. Loureiro & Ståle Navrud & John Rolfe, 2021. "Guidance to Enhance the Validity and Credibility of Environmental Benefit Transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 575-624, July.

    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. Jie He & Bing Zhang, 2021. "Current Air Pollution and Willingness to Pay for Better Air Quality: Revisiting the Temporal Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(1), pages 135-168, May.
    2. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    3. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J. & Smith, Leigh M. & Bishop, Brian J., 2004. "Random error in willingness to pay measurement: A multiple indicators, latent variable approach to the reliability of contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 41-59, February.
    4. Gonzalez, Matias & Leon, Carmelo J., 2003. "Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 159-169, June.
    5. Mattias Boman & Leif Mattsson & Göran Ericsson & Bengt Kriström, 2011. "Moose Hunting Values in Sweden Now and Two Decades Ago: The Swedish Hunters Revisited," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 515-530, December.
    6. J. Price & D. Dupont & W. Adamowicz, 2017. "As Time Goes By: Examination of Temporal Stability Across Stated Preference Question Formats," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 643-662, November.
    7. Lew, Daniel K. & Wallmo, Kristy, 2017. "Temporal stability of stated preferences for endangered species protection from choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 87-97.
    8. Hidano, Noboru & Kato, Takaaki & Aritomi, Masakazu, 2005. "Benefits of participating in contingent valuation mail surveys and their effects on respondent behavior: a panel analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 63-80, January.
    9. Wanggi Jaung & Louis Putzel & Gary Q. Bull & Diswandi Diswandi & Witardi & Markum, 2019. "Temporal Reliability of Willingness to Pay for Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from Lombok, Indonesia," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(04), pages 1-22, October.
    10. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    11. Joseph Cook & Marc Jeuland & Brian Maskery & Dale Whittington, 2012. "Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 473-496, April.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    13. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    14. John C. Whitehead & Thomas J. Hoban, 1999. "Testing for Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation with Time for Changes in Factors Affecting Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 453-465.
    15. Akcura, Elcin, 2015. "Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 84-94.
    16. Jee W Hwang, 2012. "Temporal reliability test of nonconsumptive wildlife recreation benefits constructed from choke price data," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 788-798.
    17. K. McConnell* & I. Strand & Sebastián Valdés, 1998. "Testing Temporal Reliability and Carry-over Effect: The Role of Correlated Responses in Test-retest Reliability Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(3), pages 357-374, October.
    18. González-Cabán, Armando & Loomis, John B. & Rodriguez, Andrea & Hesseln, Hayley, 2007. "A comparison of CVM survey response rates, protests and willingness-to-pay of Native Americans and general population for fuels reduction policies," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 49-71, May.
    19. Kuller, M. & Beutler, P. & Lienert, J., 2023. "Preference change in stakeholder group-decision processes in the public sector: Extent, causes and implications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(3), pages 1268-1285.
    20. Elcin Akcura, 2013. "Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity," Working Papers 161, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Office of the Chief Economist.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:140:y:2017:i:c:p:235-240. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.