IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v65y1998i1p160-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Whitehead
  • Timothy C. Haab
  • Ju‐Chin Huang

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to test for scope effects with the contingent valuation method. We use data from a telephone survey focusing on water quality improvements in the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds in North Carolina. We find that the willingness to pay estimates are sensitive to the scope of the policy. These results suggest that the use of inexpensive survey methods may not be the cause of the failure to detect scope effects in some recent contingent valuation studies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:65:y:1998:i:1:p:160-168
    DOI: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.1998.tb00135.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.1998.tb00135.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/j.2325-8012.1998.tb00135.x?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
    2. Boyle Kevin J. & Desvousges William H. & Johnson F. Reed & Dunford Richard W. & Hudson Sara P., 1994. "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 64-83, July.
    3. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    4. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    5. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 1993. "The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1263-1267.
    6. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, "undated". "Intuitive Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 9609, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    7. John C. Whitehead, 1995. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Comparative Statics and Interpretation of Contingent Valuation Results," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(2), pages 207-215.
    8. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    9. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
    10. Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
    11. Randall, Alan & Hoehn, John P., 1996. "Embedding in Market Demand Systems," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 369-380, May.
    12. Diamond, Peter, 1996. "Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 337-347, May.
    13. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    14. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    15. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
    16. Fischhoff, Baruch & Quadrel, Marilyn Jacobs & Kamlet, Mark & Loewenstain, George & Dawes, Robyn & Fischbeck, Paul & Klepper, Steven & Leland, Jonathan & Stroh, Patrick, 1993. "Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Mode," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 211-234, June.
    17. Smith, V. Kerry, 1992. "Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 71-89, January.
    18. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    19. John Whitehead & Ju-Chin Huang & Glenn Blomquist & Richard Ready, 1998. "Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 107-116, January.
    20. 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.
    21. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1998. "Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 216-229.
    22. 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.
    23. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    24. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    25. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lesley, James C., 1996. "Must Contingent Valuation Surveys Cost So Much?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 79-95, July.
    26. Berrens, Robert P. & Ganderton, Philip T. & Silva, Carol L., 1996. "Valuing The Protection Of Minimum Instream Flows In New Mexico," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-16, December.
    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. John C. Whitehead & Peter A. Groothuis & Rob Southwick, 2007. "Linking Recreation Demand and Willingness to Pay with the Inclusive Value: Valuation of Saginaw Bay Coastal Marsh," Working Papers 07-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    2. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    3. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "Improving Willingness to Pay Estimates for Quality Improvements through Joint Estimation with Quality Perceptions," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(1), pages 100-111, July.
    4. John Whitehead & Suzanne Finney, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Submerged Maritime Cultural Resources," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 231-240, November.
    5. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    6. John C. Whitehead & Peter A. Groothuis & Rob Southwick & Pat Foster-Turley, 2006. "Economic Values of Saginaw Bay Coastal Marshes," Working Papers 06-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    7. Patrizia Riganti, 2022. "Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation Applications to Cultural Capital: Does the Nature of the Goods Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, May.
    8. 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.

    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    5. Moisés Carrasco Garcés & Felipe Vasquez-Lavin & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & José Luis Bustamante Oporto & Manuel Barrientos & Arcadio A. Cerda, 2021. "Embedding effect and the consequences of advanced disclosure: evidence from the valuation of cultural goods," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 1039-1062, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    8. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    9. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    10. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    11. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2003. "Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 59-72, January.
    14. Ian J. Bateman & Michael P. Cameron & Antreas Tsoumas, 2006. "Investigating the Characteristics of Stated Preferences for Reducing the Impacts of Air Pollution: A Contingent Valuation Experiment," Working Papers in Economics 06/08, University of Waikato.
    15. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    16. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    17. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-18.
    18. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "They doth protest too much, methinks: Reply to “Reply to Whitehead”," Working Papers 24-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    20. Bohara, Alok K. & McKee, Michael & Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol L. & Brookshire, David S., 1998. "Effects of Total Cost and Group-Size Information on Willingness to Pay Responses: Open Ended vs. Dichotomous Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 142-163, March.

    More about this item

    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:wly:soecon:v:65:y:1998:i:1:p:160-168. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    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.