Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values
Embedding, the notion that respondents to contingent valuation (CV) questions often value more than the researcher intends, has engendered extreme views. These range from the suggestion that embedding is so severe that it renders CV useless to the assertion that embedding can be eliminated by providing sufficient information in a survey. This paper examines three alternative explanations for embedding: 1) the purchase of moral satisfaction, 2) independent valuation and summation, and 3) mental models of joint products. Several studies that shed light on the nature of the embedding problem are presented and we examine whether it is possible to test for embedding through follow up questions that obtain self reports from respondents. We show that answers to these debriefing questions predict whether or not different groups of respondents pass a scope test (i.e., a statistically significant difference between groups valuing different levels of the same commodity). We reject the view that increased market context can solve the embedding problem. Rather, embedding may depend on the nature of the commodity itself.
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.
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.
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.:
- 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.
- Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
- Brown, G. & Layton, D. & Lazo, J., 1994. "Valuing Habitat and Endangered Species," Working Papers 94-1, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- Carson, R.T. & Mitchell, R.C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Kopp, R.J. & Presser, S. & Ruud, P.A., 1992. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," MPRA Paper 6984, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
- Brown, G. & Layton, D. & Lazo, J., 1994. "Valuing Habitat and Endangered Species," Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington 94-1, Department of Economics at the University of Washington.
- Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-77, March.
- Harrison, Glenn W., 1992. "Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: A critique of kahneman and knetsch," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 248-257, November.
- Douglas D. Davis & Charles A. Holt, 1992.
"Introduction to Experimental Economics
[Experimental Economics]," Introductory Chapters, Princeton University Press.
- Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. " Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-84, June.
- Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-51, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:20:y:1998:i:2:p:163-178. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.