IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v80y2004i2p258-271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Neil A. Powe
  • Ian J. Bateman

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Neil A. Powe & Ian J. Bateman, 2004. "Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(2), pages 258-271.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:80:y:2004:i:2:p:258-271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

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

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Swait, Joffre & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2021. "Distortions in willingness-to-pay for public goods induced by endemic distrust in institutions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    3. K.G. Willis & N.A. Powe & G.D. Garrod, 2005. "Estimating the Value of Improved Street Lighting: A Factor Analytical Discrete Choice Approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2289-2303, November.
    4. Morgan, O. Ashton & Huth, William L., 2011. "Using revealed and stated preference data to estimate the scope and access benefits associated with cave diving," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-118, January.
    5. Sagebiel, Julian & Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Spatially explicit demand for afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 190-199.
    6. Svensson, Mikael & Vredin Johansson, Maria, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Private and Public Safety: Why the Difference?," Working Papers 2007:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
    7. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    8. Andrea M. Leiter & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2006. "Proportionality of Willingness to Pay to Small Risk Changes – The Impact of Attitudinal Factors in Scope Tests," Working Papers 2006.90, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    10. Mikael Svensson, 2009. "Precautionary behavior and willingness to pay for a mortality risk reduction: Searching for the expected relationship," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 65-85, August.
    11. Andrea Leiter & Gerald Pruckner, 2009. "Proportionality of Willingness to Pay to Small Changes in Risk: The Impact of Attitudinal Factors in Scope Tests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 169-186, February.
    12. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 193-208.
    13. Thomas Lundhede & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Nick Hanley & Niels Strange & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2015. "Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 296-316.
    14. 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.
    15. Bishop, Richard C., 2018. "Warm Glow, Good Feelings, and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    16. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.
    17. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
    18. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.
    19. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    20. Vossler, Christian A. & Evans, Mary F., 2009. "Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 338-345, November.
    21. Glenk, Klaus & Fischer, Anke, 2010. "Insurance, prevention or just wait and see? Public preferences for water management strategies in the context of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2279-2291, September.
    22. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Martinsen, Louise & Hasler, Berit & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2011. "Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1170-1177, April.
    23. Gelo, Dambala & Turpie, Jane, 2021. "Bayesian analysis of demand for urban green space: A contingent valuation of developing a new urban park," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    More about this item

    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:uwp:landec:v:80:y:2004:i:2:p:258-271. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.