IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural bias in contingent valuation of copper mining in the Commonwealth of Dominica


  • Pemberton, Carlisle A.
  • Harris-Charles, Emaline
  • Patterson-Andrews, Hazel


Cultural bias in contingent valuation exists if groups within a population have a cultural predisposition toward answering "no" or "yes" to questions which causes the population estimate of the WTP to be underestimated or overestimated. This study estimated cultural bias through the valuation of environmental resources threatened by copper mining on the island of Dominica. The results rejected the null hypotheses of identical social characteristics and similar answers to binary response questions by the four social groups. The Caribs answered "no" significantly more than other Dominicans. The mean WTP of the Caribs was below 0.16 of the values for the other groups. However, for the Caribs, their WTP as a percentage of their annual income was more than twice that of visitors, suggesting income was not a factor affecting the WTP. Population WTP, as the aggregate of separate group estimates of the WTP was equal to EC$152.40Â million. However, population WTP estimated from a single sample from the whole population was EC$110.15Â million. Thus, the cultural bias was estimated at EC$-41.64Â million, reducing the population WTP by 27.33%. Care is therefore needed in sampling social groups and estimating population WTP in contingent valuation studies, especially in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Pemberton, Carlisle A. & Harris-Charles, Emaline & Patterson-Andrews, Hazel, 2010. "Cultural bias in contingent valuation of copper mining in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 19-23, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2010:i:1:p:19-23

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Pemberton, Carlisle A. & Mader-Charles, Kathleen, 2005. "Ecotourism as a Means of Conserving Wetlands," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    3. Casey, James F. & Kahn, James R. & Rivas, Alexandre, 2006. "Willingness to pay for improved water service in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 365-372, June.
    4. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    5. Pemberton, Carlisle A. & Mader-Charles, Kathleen, 2005. "Ecotourism as a Means of Conserving Wetlands," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 463-474, August.
    6. V. Kerry Smith, 2008. "Reflections on the Literature," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 292-308, Summer.
    7. Schlapfer, Felix, 2009. "Contingent valuation: confusions, problems, and solutions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1569-1571, April.
    8. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    9. Shultz, Steven & Pinazzo, Jorge & Cifuentes, Miguel, 1998. "Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 131-149, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Lim, Seul-Ye & Min, Seo-Hyeon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2016. "The public value of contaminated soil remediation in Janghang copper smelter of Korea," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 66-74.
    2. Isabel Mendes & Idalina Dias Sardinha & Sérgio Milheiras, 2013. "Methodological Issues for Estimating the Total Value of the Rehabilitation of Mining Fields: the Case of S. Domingo’s Mine," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 3(4), pages 593-593.
    3. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2024. "Limited Substitutability, Relative Price Changes and the Uplifting of Public Natural Capital Values," CESifo Working Paper Series 11156, CESifo.
    4. Hynes, S. & Ghermandi, A. & Norton, D. & Williams, H., 2017. "Marine Recreational Ecosystem Service Value Meta-Analysis," Working Papers 266404, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    5. Hynes, Stephen & Ghermandi, Andrea & Norton, Daniel & Williams, Heidi, 2018. "Marine recreational ecosystem service value estimation: A meta-analysis with cultural considerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 410-419.
    6. Miguel Ángel Tobarra-González, 2015. "A new recoding method for treating protest responses in contingent valuation studies using travel cost data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1479-1489, August.
    7. Isabel Mendes, 2013. "Mining Rehabilitation Planning, Mining Heritage Tourism, Benefits and Contingent Valuation," Working Papers wp032013, SOCIUS, Research Centre in Economic and Organisational Sociology at the School of Economics and Management (ISEG) of the University of Lisbon.
    8. Yiannis Kountouris & Kyriaki Remoundou, 2016. "Cultural Influence on Preferences and Attitudes for Environmental Quality," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 369-397, May.
    9. Georgios Tentes & Dimitrios Damigos, 2012. "The Lost Value of Groundwater: The Case of Asopos River Basin in Central Greece," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(1), pages 147-164, January.
    10. Tobarra-González, Miguel Angel, 2014. "Valoración del Parque Natural de Calblanque y tratamiento de respuestas protesta," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(01), pages 1-24, June.

    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. Pramod Lamsal & Kishor Atreya & Krishna Prasad Pant & Lalit Kumar, 2016. "Tourism and wetland conservation: application of travel cost and willingness to pay an entry fee at Ghodaghodi Lake Complex, Nepal," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 51-61, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    4. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    5. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    6. Héctor Tavárez & Oscar Abelleira & Levan Elbakidze, 2024. "Environmental awareness and willingness to pay for biodiversity improvement in Puerto Rico," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 154-166, March.
    7. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    8. Andrea Ghermandi & John Agard & Paulo A. L. D. Nunes, 2018. "Applying Geographic Information Systems to ecosystem services valuation and mapping in Trinidad and Tobago," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 289-306, October.
    9. Grösche, Peter & Schröder, Carsten, 2011. "Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 363-370, March.
    10. Hasan, Syed M. & Akram, Agha Ali & Jeuland, Marc, 2021. "Awareness of coping costs and willingness to pay for urban drinking water service: Evidence from Lahore, Pakistan," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    11. Craig D. Broadbent, 2014. "Evaluating mitigation and calibration techniques for hypothetical bias in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(12), pages 1831-1848, December.
    12. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is," Monash Economics Working Papers 42-16, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    14. Kaczmarski, Jesse I., 2022. "Public support for community microgrid services," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    16. Clive L Spash, 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    17. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter & Akay, Alpaslan, 2011. "The effect of power outages and cheap talk on willingness to pay to reduce outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 790-798, September.
    18. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    19. Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten & Narita, Daiju & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2017. "Public preferences for alternative electricity mixes in post-Fukushima Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 262-270.
    20. Howley, Peter & Hynes, Stephen & O'Donoghue, Cathal, 2010. "The citizen versus consumer distinction: An exploration of individuals' preferences in Contingent Valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1524-1531, May.


    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:70:y:2010:i:1:p:19-23. 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: .

    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.