IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v64y2007i3p531-542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using focus groups to develop contingent valuation scenarios--A case study of women's groups in rural Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Borghi, Josephine
  • Shrestha, Daya L.
  • Shrestha, Deepa
  • Jan, Stephen

Abstract

The construction of a contingent valuation (CV) scenario forms a critical component of willingness-to-pay (WTP) survey design, especially when working across diverse cultural and socio-economic settings. However, the methods used to develop CV scenarios have not been well reported in the health economics literature. This paper begins by describing how qualitative methods can be used to develop CV surveys. It then presents a case study illustrating how focus groups were used to develop a CV survey to value a women's group intervention in rural Nepal. A series of focus group discussions were conducted with three stakeholder groups. These were used to determine the most appropriate description of the good to be valued and the means by which payment would be elicited. These methods were very helpful in designing the survey tool and choosing the key attributes to describe the intervention. They also familiarised field workers with the concept of WTP. Further work of this kind will help to highlight additional advantages and limitations of qualitative approaches to survey design.

Suggested Citation

  • Borghi, Josephine & Shrestha, Daya L. & Shrestha, Deepa & Jan, Stephen, 2007. "Using focus groups to develop contingent valuation scenarios--A case study of women's groups in rural Nepal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 531-542, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:64:y:2007:i:3:p:531-542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(06)00503-X
    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. Kathleen M. Painter & Robert Douglas Scott II & Philip R. Wandschneider & Kenneth L. Casavant, 2002. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure User and Nonuser Benefits: An Application to Public Transit," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 394-409.
    2. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
    3. Dubourg & Jones‐Lee & Graham Loomes, 1997. "Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(256), pages 681-702, November.
    4. Henrik Svedsäter, 2003. "Economic Valuation of the Environment: How Citizens Make Sense of Contingent Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 122-135.
    5. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    6. Kontogianni, Areti & Skourtos, Mihalis S. & Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2001. "Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 123-138, April.
    7. Philip M. Clarke, 2002. "Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 117-127, March.
    8. Shackley, Phil & Donaldson, Cam, 2002. "Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care?: New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 971-991, November.
    9. Onwujekwe, Obinna, 2004. "Criterion and content validity of a novel structured haggling contingent valuation question format versus the bidding game and binary with follow-up format," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 525-537, February.
    10. Kaplowitz, Michael D. & Hoehn, John P., 2001. "Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 237-247, February.
    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. Isabel Mendes, 2015. "Tackling the Multidimensional Characteristics of Archaeological Heritage with Preference Based Approaches," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 5(4), pages 995-995.
    2. Josephine Borghi, 2008. "Aggregation rules for cost–benefit analysis: a health economics perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 863-875, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Kunwar, Samrat B. & Bohara, Alok K. & Thacher, Jennifer, 2020. "Public preference for river restoration in the Danda Basin, Nepal: A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    6. Borghi, Josephine & Jan, Stephen, 2008. "Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: Application of the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 235-248, August.
    7. Geneau, Robert & Massae, Patrick & Courtright, Paul & Lewallen, Susan, 2008. "Using qualitative methods to understand the determinants of patients' willingness to pay for cataract surgery: A study in Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 558-568, February.
    8. Isabel Mendes, 2016. "Assessing the Values of Archaeological Heritage," Working Papers Department of Economics 2016/02, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.

    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. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2014. "The Random Card Sort Method And Respondent Certainty In Contingent Valuation: An Exploratory Investigation Of Range Bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(10), pages 1213-1223, October.
    2. Thomas Dietz & Paul C. Stern & Amy Dan, 2009. "How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 329-347.
    3. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    4. Baker, Rachel & Robinson, Angela & Smith, Richard, 2008. "How do respondents explain WTP responses? A review of the qualitative evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1427-1442, August.
    5. Martha A. Starr, 2014. "Qualitative And Mixed-Methods Research In Economics: Surprising Growth, Promising Future," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 238-264, April.
    6. Karine Lamiraud & Robert Oxoby & Cam Donaldson, 2015. "Incremental willingness to pay," Working Papers hal-01205938, HAL.
    7. Callan, Aoife & O'Shea, Eamon, 2015. "Willingness to pay for telecare programmes to support independent living: Results from a contingent valuation study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 94-102.
    8. Karine Lamiraud & Robert Oxoby & Cam Donaldson, 2016. "Incremental willingness to pay: a theoretical and empirical exposition," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(1), pages 101-123, January.
    9. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    10. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaincharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2007. "Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 283/2007, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    11. Jan Hanousek & Randall K. Filer, 2001. "Consumers' Opinion of Inflation Bias Due to Quality Improvements in Transition in the Czech Republic," Development and Comp Systems 0110009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Hanousek, Jan & Filer, Randall K, 2004. "Consumers' Opinion of Inflation Bias Due to Quality Improvements," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 235-254, October.
    13. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    14. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    15. Lamiraud, Karine & Oxoby, Robert & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "Reference Dependence and Incremental WTP," ESSEC Working Papers WP1609, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    16. Richard D. Smith, 2006. "It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 281-293, March.
    17. Fischer, Anke & Hanley, Nick, 2007. "Analysing decision behaviour in stated preference surveys: A consumer psychological approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 303-314, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Borghi, Josephine & Jan, Stephen, 2008. "Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: Application of the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 235-248, August.
    20. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.

    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:socmed:v:64:y:2007:i:3:p:531-542. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.