IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v20y1998i2p163-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values

Author

Listed:
  • Schulze, William D.
  • McClelland, Gary H.
  • Lazo, Jeffrey K.
  • Rowe, Robert D.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:20:y:1998:i:2:p:163-178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928-7655(97)00034-1
    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

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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 147-184, June.
    3. 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 165-177, March.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & Ann Fisher, 1986. "A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods for Estimating Environmental Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 280-290.
    7. 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.
    8. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-551, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Brown, G. & Layton, D. & Lazo, J., 1994. "Valuing Habitat and Endangered Species," Working Papers 94-1, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    11. Douglas D. Davis & Charles A. Holt, 1992. "Introduction to Experimental Economics," Introductory Chapters,in: Experimental Economics Princeton University Press.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Bateman, Ian J. & Brouwer, Roy, 2006. "Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: A novel scope-sensitivity test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 199-214, August.
    3. Nick Hanley & Carol A. Salt & Mike Wilson & Meara Culligan-Dunsmore, 2001. "Evaluating alternative "countermeasures" against food contamination resulting from nuclear accidents," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 92-109.
    4. Tanya O�Garra & Susanna Mourato, 2013. "An Experimental Investigation of the Impacts of Persuasion and Information Acquisition on Non-Use Values for Climate Change Adaptation," GRI Working Papers 125, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    5. Morse-Jones, Sian & Bateman, Ian J. & Kontoleon, Andreas & Ferrini, Silvia & Burgess, Neil D. & Turner, R. Kerry, 2012. "Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 9-18.
    6. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    9. Poe, Gregory L. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Bergstrom, John C., 2000. "A Meta Analysis Of Contingent Values For Groundwater Quality In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21871, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    11. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Mazur, Kasia, 2013. "Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: Comparing two choice modelling experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152176, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    More about this item

    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: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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505569 .

    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.