Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries
This paper discusses three main reasons why so many of the contingent valuation studies conducted in developing countries are so bad. First, the contingent valuation surveys themselves are often poorly administered and executed. Second, contingent valuation scenarios are often very poorly crafted. Third, few CV studies conducted in developing countries are designed to test whether some of the key assumptions that the reseacher made were the right ones, and whether the results are robust with respect to simple variations in research design and survey method. The paper concludes that research on stated preference methods in developing countries is critically important to the successfull implementation of these methods because (1) there is no empirical evidence to suggest that rapid, "streamlined" CV surveys yield reliable, accurate results, and (2) there is a significant risk that the current pust for cheaper, simpler CV studies could discredit the methodology itself. Moreover, the policy debates to which CV researchers are asked to contribute are often of tremendous importance to the well-being of households in developing countries. Because the costs of policy mistakes can prove tragic, it is critical that CV researchers push for excellence in this research enterprise and that funding agencies think more carefully about the value of policy-relevant information in the fields in which the contingent valuation method is being used to study household preferences and behavior (e.g., water and sanitation services, urban air pollution, soil erosion, deforestation, biodiversity, watershed management, ecosystem valuation, vaccines for the poor).
|Date of creation:||Sep 2007|
|Date of revision:||Sep 2007|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.eepsea.org|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Carson, Richard & Flores, Nicholas E. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1998. "Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 314-323, November.
- Cropper, Mauren L. & Haile, Mitiku & Lampieti, Julian A. & Poulos, Christine & Whittington, Dale, 2000. "The value of preventing malaria in Tembien, Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2273, The World Bank.
- Whittington, Dale, 1998.
"Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries,"
Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-30, January.
- Dale Whittington, 1996. "Administering Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp199601t1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jan 1996.
- Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006.
Handbook of Environmental Economics,
in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936
- Davis, Jennifer & Whittington, Dale, 1998. ""Participatory" Research for Development Projects: A Comparison of the Community Meeting and Household Survey Techniques," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 73-94, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eep:tpaper:sp200709s1. 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: (Arief Anshory yusuf)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.