IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation

Listed author(s):
  • Desvousges, William
  • Mathews, Kristy
  • Train, Kenneth

The standard test for scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies determines whether the response to changes in scope is statistically significant; it does not address whether the magnitude of response is appropriate given the specified changes in scope. We examine contingent valuation studies that implemented scope tests to determine what they imply about the adequacy of response to scope. We find that in the vast majority of studies, the magnitude of response cannot be assessed. Only three studies permit such an assessment: Samples and Hollyer (1990), Diamond et al. (1993) and Chapman et al. (2009). The first two papers find that responses to their surveys did not vary adequately with scope. The third study passed the standard scope test, but we show that the magnitude of response in this study is inadequate by straightforward methods of assessment and cannot be explained by diminishing marginal utility or substitution. More research is needed on this issue, including wider application of adding-up tests on incremental parts, as well as the development of other methods that permit an assessment of the magnitude of response or other tests of rationality.

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.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912003813
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 84 (2012)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 121-128

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:84:y:2012:i:c:p:121-128
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.003
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

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. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
  2. 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.
  3. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B. L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(01), pages 139-149, July.
  4. Binger, Brian R. & Copple, Robert F. & Hoffman, Elizabeth, 1995. "The Use of Contingent Valuation Methodology in Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Legal Fact and Economic Fiction," ISU General Staff Papers 199501010800001574, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  5. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Dallas Burtraw & David Evans & Alan Krupnick, 2006. "Valuation of Natural Resource Improvements in the Adirondacks," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 445-464.
  6. Loomis, John B. & Le Trong Hung & González-Cabán, Armando, 2009. "Willingness to pay function for two fuel treatments to reduce wildfire acreage burned: A scope test and comparison of White and Hispanic households," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 155-160, May.
  7. Elena Ojea & Maria L. Loureiro, 2009. "Valuation Of Wildlife: Revising Some Additional Considerations For Scope Tests," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 27(2), pages 236-250, 04.
  8. Pouta, Eija, 2005. "Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 539-550, May.
  9. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 5-38, July.
  10. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
  11. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate, 2005. "Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, July.
  12. Halstead, John M. & Stevens, Thomas H. & Harper, Wendy & Hill, L. Bruce, 2004. "Electricity Deregulation and the Valuation of Visibility Loss in Wilderness Areas: A Research Note," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 34(1).
  13. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
  14. Holmes, Thomas P. & Bergstrom, John C. & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan B. & Orr, Fritz III, 2004. "Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 19-30, May.
  15. V. Smith & Xiaolong Zhang & Raymond Palmquist, 1997. "Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-Market Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 223-247, October.
  16. 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.
  17. Cooper, Philip & Poe, Gregory L. & Bateman, Ian J., 2004. "The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-82, September.
  18. Macmillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Buckland, Steve, 1996. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Uncertain Environmental Gains," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 43(5), pages 519-533, November.
  19. Nick Hanley & Bengt Kristrom, "undated". "What’s it worth? Exploring value uncertainty using interval questions in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 2002_10, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
  20. Tanguay, M. & Adamowicz, W. & Boxall, P. & Phillips, W. & White, W., 1993. "A Socio-Economic Evaluation of Woodland Caribou in Northwestern Saskatchewan," Project Report Series 232366, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
  21. S. L. Goodman & W. Seabrooke & S. A. Jaffry, 1998. "Considering Conservation Value in Economic Appraisals of Coastal Resources," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(3), pages 313-336.
  22. 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.
  23. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
  24. Jason Bell & Joel Huber & W. Kip Viscusi, 2009. "Voter-weighted environmental preferences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 655-671.
  25. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
  26. Jytte Seested Nielsen & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Does question order influence sensitivity to scope? Empirical findings from a web-based contingent valuation study," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 369-381.
  27. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
  28. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
  29. Diamond, Peter, 1996. "Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 337-347, May.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang, 1998. "Part-Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
  33. Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
  34. Ju-Chin Huang & Timothy C. Haab & John C. Whitehead, "undated". "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Can Revealed and Stated Preferences Data be Combined?," Working Papers 9704, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
  35. Schulze, William D. & McClelland, Gary H. & Lazo, Jeffrey K. & Rowe, Robert D., 1998. "Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 163-178, June.
  36. Mary Riddel & John Loomis, 1998. "Joint Estimation of Multiple CVM Scenarios under a Double Bounded Questioning Format," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 77-98, July.
  37. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1998. "A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 315-322, June.
  38. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
  39. Hite, Diane & Hudson, Darren & Intarapapong, Walaiporn, 2002. "Willingness To Pay For Water Quality Improvements: The Case Of Precision Application Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(02), December.
  40. KyeongAe Choe & Dale Whittington & Donald T. Lauria, 1996. "The Economic Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Davao, Philippines," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 519-537.
  41. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
  42. 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.
  43. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & Schokkaert, Erik, 2003. "Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 231-245, March.
  44. Bowker, James Michael & Didychuk, D.D., 1994. "Estimation Of The Nonmarket Benefits Of Agricultural Land Retention In Eastern Canada," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 23(2), October.
  45. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
  46. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
  47. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 1997. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Should Revealed and Stated Preference Data Be Combined?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 240-255, November.
  48. Anselm Romer & Werner Pommerehne & Lars Feld, 1998. "Revealing Preferences for Reductions of Public Risks: An Application of the CV Approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 477-503.
  49. David S. Brookshire & Larry S. Eubanks & Alan Randall, 1983. "Estimating Option Prices and Existence Values for Wildlife Resources," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(1), pages 1-15.
  50. Denise L. Stanley, 2005. "Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness-to-pay for Endangered Species," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 165-179, 04.
  51. 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.
  52. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
  53. Berrens, Robert P. & Ganderton, Philip T. & Silva, Carol L., 1996. "Valuing The Protection Of Minimum Instream Flows In New Mexico," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(02), December.
  54. 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.
  55. Mary Clare Ahearn & Kevin J. Boyle & Daniel R. Hellerstein, 2006. "Designing a Contingent Valuation Study to Estimate the Benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program on Grassland Bird Populations," Chapters,in: Handbook on Contingent Valuation, chapter 9 Edward Elgar Publishing.
  56. Bowker, J.M. & Didychuk, D.D., 1994. "Estimation of the Nonmarket Benefits of Agricultural Land Retention in Eastern Canada," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(02), pages 218-225, October.
  57. Thomas H. Stevens & Nichole E. DeCoteau & Cleve E. Willis, 1997. "Sensitivity of Contingent Valuation to Alternative Payment Schedules," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(1), pages 140-148.
  58. Neil A. Powe & Ian J. Bateman, 2004. "Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(2), pages 258-271.
  59. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2006. "Public Preferences Toward Environmental Risks: The Case of Trihalomethanes," Chapters,in: Handbook on Contingent Valuation, chapter 19 Edward Elgar Publishing.
  60. Amiran, Edoh Y. & Hagen, Daniel A., 2010. "The scope trials: Variation in sensitivity to scope and WTP with directionally bounded utility functions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 293-301, May.
  61. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(02), December.
  62. John Whitehead & Suzanne Finney, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Submerged Maritime Cultural Resources," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 231-240, November.
  63. Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 80-99, July.
  64. Carson, Richard T & Wilks, Leanne & Imber, David, 1994. "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 727-749, Supplemen.
  65. Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 1999. "Estimating the Benefits of Agri-environmental Policy: Econometric Issues in Open-ended Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 23-43.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:84:y:2012:i:c:p:121-128. 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: (Dana Niculescu)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.