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

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," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(3), pages 246-266, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijsepp:v:40:y:2013:i:3:p:246-266
    DOI: 10.1108/03068291311291527
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068291311291527/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068291311291527/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/03068291311291527?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. 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(2), pages 271-280, October.
    2. 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), pages 1-10, October.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    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.

    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. Franco, Daniel & Luiselli, Luca, 2013. "A procedure to analyse the strategic outliers and the multiple motivations in a contingent valuation: a case study for a concrete policy purpose," MPRA Paper 66498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    3. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    4. Franco, Daniele & Luiselli, Luca, 2014. "Shared ecological knowledge and wetland values: a case study," MPRA Paper 66496, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, 2017. "Are preferences stated in web vs. personal interviews different? A comparison of willingness to pay results for a large multi-country study of the Baltic Sea eutrophication reduction," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258604, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    9. Stephanie F. Stefanski & Jay P. Shimshack, 2016. "Valuing Marine Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico: Evidence from the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 211-232.
    10. Kanokwan Chancharoenchai & Wuthiya Saraithong, 2022. "Sustainable Development of Cassava Value Chain through the Promotion of Locally Sourced Chips," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    11. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    12. Vasconcelos, Anaí Floriano & Barbassa, Ademir Paceli & dos Santos, Maria Fernanda Nóbrega & Imani, Maryam Astaraie, 2022. "Barriers to sustainable urban stormwater management in developing countries: The case of Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    13. Dimitra Lazaridou & Anastasios Michailidis & Konstantinos Mattas, 2019. "Evaluating the Willingness to Pay for Using Recycled Water for Irrigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-8, September.
    14. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    15. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Wilson, Mathew A. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 2001. "Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 133-148, January.
    16. Miguel Ángel Tobarra-González, 2015. "A new recoding method for treating protest responses in contingent valuation studies using travel cost data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1479-1489, August.
    17. Voltaire, Louinord & Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Pirrone, Claudio & Larzillière, Agathe, 2017. "Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 47-55.
    18. Angell, Blake & Cullen, Patricia & Laba, Tracey & Lung, Tom & Shanahan, Marian & Sakashita, Chika & Eades, Sandra & Ivers, Rebecca & Jan, Stephen, 2018. "What is the value of a driver licence? A contingent valuation study of Australian adults," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 25-34.
    19. Hasselwander, Marc & Bigotte, Joao F. & Antunes, Antonio P. & Sigua, Ricardo G., 2022. "Towards sustainable transport in developing countries: Preliminary findings on the demand for mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) in Metro Manila," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 501-518.
    20. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.

    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.

    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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.