Methodological influences on ecosystem valuation: a systematic review of contingent valuation studies

被引:2
|
作者
Ann-Chyi, T. [1 ]
Sheau-Ting, L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Teknol Malaysia, Fac Built Environm & Surveying, Johor Baharu, Johor, Malaysia
关键词
Contingent valuation; willingness to pay; research methodology; PRISMA analysis; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; WATER-QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION; ELICITATION FORMATS; NONMARKET BENEFITS; STATED PREFERENCE; ECONOMIC-BENEFITS; BUDGET-CONSTRAINT; CHEAP TALK; SCOPE;
D O I
10.1080/21606544.2024.2305964
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The contingent valuation method (CVM) has long been criticised for its capability in predicting the value of public goods. Split-sample studies are conducted to assess the effects of research methodologies on economic value estimation. However, there is a lack of literature that comprehensively reviews the previous works. This study addresses this knowledge gap by identifying the effect of questionnaire design and survey methods on CVM outcomes, focusing on ecosystem valuation. The preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework is adopted, and 74 previous studies are included, gathering 100 observations. The findings reveal that questionnaire design elements such as providing more detailed information, using hypothetical payments, incorporating additional questions, applying a more extensive scope of the conservation programme, and utilising dichotomous choice questions positively influence the mean willingness to pay (WTP). Regarding survey methods, results show that active users of the ecosystem exhibit higher WTP than non-users, and direct interaction with the respondents yields higher WTP outcomes. This study signifies how research methodology choices influence economic values derived from CVM, highlighting the importance of considering survey bias and aiding the development of a more effective survey instrument.
引用
收藏
页码:449 / 467
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Contingent valuation and incentives
    Champ, PA
    Flores, NE
    Brown, TC
    Chivers, J
    LAND ECONOMICS, 2002, 78 (04) : 591 - 604
  • [32] Contingent valuation of landscape
    Bamber, BR
    Khoury, GA
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-TRANSPORT, 1999, 135 (04) : 185 - 194
  • [33] Handbook on contingent valuation
    Kerr, Geoff
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2007, 51 (02) : 213 - 216
  • [34] Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review
    Matos Marquez, Laura Andreina
    Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes
    Machado, Karine Borges
    do Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins
    Castro, Joana D. 'arc Bardella
    Nabout, Joao Carlos
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2023, 64
  • [35] The Ecosystem Services and Green Infrastructure: A Systematic Review and the Gap of Economic Valuation
    Ersoy Mirici, Merve
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (01)
  • [36] On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part I - Caveat investigator
    Beattie, J
    Covey, J
    Dolan, P
    Hopkins, L
    Jones-Lee, M
    Loomes, G
    Pidgeon, N
    Robinson, A
    Spencer, A
    JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 1998, 17 (01) : 5 - 25
  • [37] Valuation of the Woopo Wetland in Korea: a contingent valuation study
    Kwak, Seung-Jun
    Yoo, Seung-Hoon
    Lee, Chung-Ki
    ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, 2007, 12 : 323 - 328
  • [38] Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies
    Halkos, George
    Leonti, Aikaterini
    Sardianou, Eleni
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 12 (11)
  • [39] A REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION OF CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD STUDIES IN SUB-SAHARA AFRICA
    Kangethe, A. W.
    Franic, D.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (03) : A146 - A146
  • [40] LENGTH-BIASED SAMPLING IN CONTINGENT VALUATION STUDIES
    NOWELL, C
    EVANS, MA
    MCDONALD, L
    LAND ECONOMICS, 1988, 64 (04) : 367 - 371