IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijsepp/v40y2013i3p246-266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A procedure to analyse the strategic outliers and the multiple motivations in a contingent valuation: A case study for a concrete policy purpose

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Franco
  • Luca Luiselli

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to describe a methodological approach to analyse the strategic outliers and the multiple motivations in a contingent valuation used for a real policy case study. Design/methodology/approach - The used approach rationalises the cross comparison of the overall different information levels obtained by the survey to outline a qualitative-quantitative pattern of the relations between the rationale and other motivations of preference behaviours. Findings - The paper found that no assumption or investigation tool used alone was sufficient to explain the respondents elicited preferences. The results confirm that those who are willing to pay also hold significant motives other than the rationale ones influencing their decisions. Research limitations/implications - The approach allows to reasonably rule the sharing-out of true zero values from “protest zeros” avoiding the risk of arbitrarily excluding valid data from the CV analyses. Practical implications - The approach may overpass the reasons behind the provision point mechanism; hence, the authors suggest to extend this procedure to divergent environmental contexts to verify the generality of the methodology. Originality/value - The adopted procedure shows that the use of monetary estimates of ecological services to support sustainable decision processes can be acceptable if coupled with the multiple motivations that hold them.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Franco & Luca Luiselli, 2013. "A procedure to analyse the strategic outliers and the multiple motivations in a contingent valuation: A case study for a concrete policy purpose," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 40(3), pages 246-266, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijsepp:v:40:y:2013:i:3:p:246-266
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/03068291311291527?utm_campaign=RePEc&WT.mc_id=RePEc
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rose, Steven K. & Clark, Jeremy & Poe, Gregory L. & Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D., 2002. "The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 131-155, February.
    2. Groothuis, Peter A. & Whitehead, John C., 2009. "The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(02), pages 271-280, October.
    3. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), October.
    4. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    5. John C. Whitehead & William B. Clifford & Thomas J. Hoban, 2000. "“WTP for Research and Extension Programs: Divergent Validity of Contingent Valuation with Single and Multiple Bound Valuation Questions,”," Working Papers 0002, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    6. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1628-1637, July.
    7. Kristin Jakobsson & Andrew Dragun, 2001. "The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(3), pages 211-227, July.
    8. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J., 2000. "Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 251-265, May.
    9. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    10. Meyerhoff, Jurgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2006. "Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 583-594, June.
    11. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
    12. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    13. Tolley, George S. & Fabian, Robert G., 1998. "Issues in improvement of the valuation of non-market goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 75-83, June.
    14. Smith, V. Kerry & Desvousges, William H. & Fisher, Ann, 1983. "Estimates of the option values for water quality improvements," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 81-86.
    15. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, "undated". "The Effect Of Protest Votes On The Estimates Of Willingness To Pay For Use Values Of Recreational Sites," Working Papers 0106, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    16. 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.
    17. Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Bishop, Richard C., 1999. "Sensitivity To Scope: Evidence From A Cvm Study Of Wetlands," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21513, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
    19. Spash, Clive L., 2000. "Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-215, August.
    20. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 674-687.
    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. Franco, Daniele & Luiselli, Luca, 2014. "Shared ecological knowledge and wetland values: a case study," MPRA Paper 66496, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Dranco, Daniel & Luiselli, Luca, 2014. "How much do the common goods of rural and semi-natural landscape cost? A case study," MPRA Paper 66309, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2015.
    3. Paunić, Alida, 2016. "Brazil, Preservation of Forest and Biodiversity," MPRA Paper 71462, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    WTP; Consequentiality; Contingent valuation; Attitudes; Outliers; Free-riders; Motivation (psychology);

    JEL classification:

    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    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:eme:ijsepp:v:40:y:2013:i:3:p:246-266. 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: (Virginia Chapman). General contact details of provider: http://www.emeraldinsight.com .

    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.