IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism

  • Neil A. Powe
  • Ian J. Bateman

This paper considers the use of contingent valuation to estimate non-market benefits from separately valued nested goods. Survey respondents were asked referendum WTP questions regarding either a scheme to protect the “whole” area of a wetland or a scheme to protect some nested “part” sub-area. The survey design permitted firstresponse testing and comparison of part and whole values revealed mixed evidence of scope sensitivity. However, allowing for variation in the degree to which differing schemes are considered to be realistic revealed highly significant scope sensitivity. These results illustrate the need for a detailed understanding of the preferences and beliefs of respondents when performing scope sensitivity tests.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/85/2/258
Download Restriction: A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 80 (2004)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 258-271

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:80:y:2004:i:2:p:258-271
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:80:y:2004:i:2:p:258-271. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.