IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/lrk/eeaart/18_2_13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coste vs. Eficiencia: utilización de entrevistadores no profesionales en valoración contingente

Author

Listed:
  • BARREIRO HURLÉ, J.

    (Dpto. de Gestión de Empresas. Universidad Pública de Navarra.)

  • PÉREZ Y PÉREZ, L

    (Unidad de Economía Agraria. Servicio de Investigación Agroalimentaria. Diputación General de Aragón.)

Abstract

La utilización del método de valoración contingente (MVC) como herramienta de valoración de los beneficios derivados de los espacios naturales protegidos está bastante extendida tanto en EE.UU. como en Europa desde los años 70, habiendo sido su desarrollo en España en los años 90. Existe, sin embargo, una falta de evidencia y consenso sobre la fiabilidad de los resultados que se pueden obtener mediante el MVC. En 1993, tras el accidente del petrolero Exxon Valdez se constituyó un grupo de expertos que emitieron un dictamen sobre la posibilidad del MVC para aportar estimaciones fiables, aunque hasta la fecha ningún ejercicio de valoración contingente ha seguido todas las recomendaciones de dicho grupo. Una de las recomendaciones era la utilización de encuestas en persona realizadas por entrevistadores profesionales, aspecto que aumenta sustancialmente el coste de aplicar el MVC para valorar activos ambientales. En este trabajo se contrasta el denominado sesgo del entrevistador, analizando el efecto sobre las estimaciones obtenidas de la utilización de encuestadores no profesionales sobre los resultados de una aplicación realizada en 1996 para valorar el Parque Posets-Maladeta en Aragón. The use of the contingent valuation method (CVM) as a tool to value environmental benefits supplied by protected natural areas is widespread in the US and Europe since the 1970´s and has had it’s development in Spain in the 1990’s. Nevertheless there is still a lack of consensus regarding CVM’s results reliability. After Exxon Valdez’s oil spill in 1993 a group of experts gave a review on the method’s validity with some criteria that should be met in order to make CVM a reliable tool, unfortunately, no study up to date has met all of the group’s recommendations. One of these recommendations was the use of professional interviewers to conduct CVM surveys, this substantially increases the cost of CVM applications. This paper tests the so called interviewer bias analysing then effects on the estimates obtained when using non-professional interviewers in CVM studies with data from an study carried out in the Parque Posets-Maladeta located in Aragón in 1996.

Suggested Citation

  • Barreiro Hurlé, J. & Pérez Y Pérez, L, 2001. "Coste vs. Eficiencia: utilización de entrevistadores no profesionales en valoración contingente," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 18, pages 5-19, Agosto.
  • Handle: RePEc:lrk:eeaart:18_2_13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.revista-eea.net
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. V. Kerry Smith, 1996. "Can Contingent Valuation Distinguish Economic Values for Different Public Goods?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 139-151.
    2. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers 10503, Resources for the Future.
    3. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, April.
    5. 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.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    7. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang, 1998. "Part-Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    8. Alan Randall, 1997. "The NOAA Panel Report: A New Beginning or the End of an Era?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1489-1494.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Contingent Valuation; Reliability; Interviewer Bias; Protected Natural Areas.;

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:lrk:eeaart:18_2_13. 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: (Miguel Angel Sanchez Granero). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fcvldes.html .

    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.