IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nceewp/280790.html

Measurement Issues and Validity Tests for Using Attitude Indicators in Contingent Valuation Research

Author

Listed:
  • McClelland, Elizabeth

Abstract

Employing attitude measures to explain valuation responses in contingent valuation studies has the potential to improve statistical analyses as well as interpretation of response information. In this paper, four types of attitude measures are compared for their ability to provide these benefits in the context of a contingent valuation of an air quality management plan for Sofia, Bulgaria. Findings show that specific attitude measures are superior to generalized attitude measures on both counts. The use of aggregated attitude indices versus single-item measures has different implications for the results, so choice of which to employ should depend upon the specific application.

Suggested Citation

  • McClelland, Elizabeth, 2001. "Measurement Issues and Validity Tests for Using Attitude Indicators in Contingent Valuation Research," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 280790, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nceewp:280790
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.280790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/280790/files/NCEE2001-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.280790?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Foxall, Gordon, 1984. "Evidence for attitudinal-behavioural consistency: Implications for consumer research paradigms," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 71-92, March.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    3. Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. "Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-184, June.
    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. Jurgen Meyerhoff, 2006. "Stated willingness to pay as hypothetical behaviour: Can attitudes tell us more?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 209-226.
    2. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.

    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. Elizabeth McClelland, 2001. "Measurement Issues and Validity Tests for Using Attitude Indicators in Contingent Valuation Research," NCEE Working Paper Series 200101, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Nov 2001.
    2. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Buckland, Steve, 1995. "Valuing Biodiversity Losses Due To Acid Deposition: A Contingent Valuation Study Of Uncertain Environmental Gains," Discussion Papers in Ecological Economics 140539, University of Stirling, Department of Economics.
    3. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, March.
    5. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
    6. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    7. Whittington, Dale & Hua Wang, 2000. "Willingness to pay for air quality improvements in Sofia, Bulgaria," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2280, The World Bank.
    8. Jichao Geng & Na Yang & Wei Zhang & Li Yang, 2023. "Public Willingness to Pay for Green Lifestyle in China: A Contingent Valuation Method Based on Integrated Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-23, January.
    9. Pouta, Eija & Rekola, Mika & Kuuluvainen, Jari & Li, Chuan-Zhong & Tahvonen, Olli, 2002. "Willingness to pay in different policy-planning methods: insights into respondents' decision-making processes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 295-311, February.
    10. Mullen, John D. & Wohlgenant, Michael K., 1992. "The Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Lamb," 1992 Conference (36th), February 10-13, 1992, Canberra, Australia 146548, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. John D. Mullen & Michael K. Wohlgenant, 1991. "The Willingness Of Consumers To Pay For Attributes Of Lamb," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 35(3), pages 247-262, December.
    12. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Prior Information, General Information, and Specific Information in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Risks: The Case of Nitrates in Groundwater," Staff Papers 121335, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    13. Wang,Hua & Laplante, Benoit & Xun Wu & Meisner, Craig, 2004. "Estimating willingness-to-pay with random valuation models : an application to Lake Sevan, Armenia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3367, The World Bank.
    14. Gubanova, Tatiana & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & McMillan, Melville, 2009. "'Pocket and Pot': Hypothetical Bias in a No-Free-Riding Public Contribution Game," Staff Paper Series 91403, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    15. Pouta, Eija, 2005. "Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 539-550, May.
    16. Walter Santagata & Giovanni Signorello, 2000. "Contingent Valuation of a Cultural Public Good and Policy Design: The Case of ``Napoli Musei Aperti''," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 24(3), pages 181-204, August.
    17. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    18. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    19. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    20. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:nceewp:280790. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nepgvus.html .

    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.