Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities

被引:91
|
作者
Veisten, K
Hoen, HF
Navrud, S
Strand, J
机构
[1] Agr Univ Norway, Dept Ecol & Nat Resource Management, NO-1432 As, Norway
[2] Agr Univ Norway, Dept Econ & Resource Management, NO-1432 As, Norway
[3] Univ Oslo, Dept Econ, NO-0317 Oslo, Norway
[4] Inst Transport Econ, NO-0602 Oslo, Norway
关键词
contingent valuation; complex environmental amenities; passive use; scope insensitivity;
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
It has been argued that respondents in contingent valuation (CV) surveys, asked to value complex environmental amenities, will state willingness to pay (WTP) independently of the scope of the project. Such insensitivity to scope would be at odds with rational choice, and could therefore imply that CV is not a theoretically valid method for biodiversity valuation. The scope test in the present CV study was applied to endangered species preservation. Respondents were split in four sub-samples facing different scopes of endangered species preservation. The design allowed for both external and internal scope tests. Furthermore, the tests were split according to elicitation format. Of four external tests of insensitivity to scope, one was rejected, two gave mixed results, depending on either the type of test or elicitation format, and for the last one the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Of five internal tests, insensitivity to scope was rejected in three cases, one test gave mixed results, and one could not be rejected. Survey design features of the CV study, especially an unfamiliar sub-group of endangered species, could explain the apparent insensitivity to scope observed. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:317 / 331
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation
    Ana Faria Lopes
    Gorm Kipperberg
    [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2020, 77 : 191 - 216
  • [2] Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies
    Sogaard, Rikke
    Lindholt, Jes
    Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte
    [J]. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY, 2012, 10 (06) : 397 - 405
  • [3] Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation
    Lopes, Ana Faria
    Kipperberg, Gorm
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2020, 77 (01): : 191 - 216
  • [4] Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation StudiesReason for Dismissal of Valuations?
    Rikke Søgaard
    Jes Lindholt
    Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
    [J]. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2012, 10 (6) : 397 - 405
  • [5] Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation StudiesNew Direction for an Old Problem
    Jennifer A. Whitty
    [J]. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2012, 10 (6) : 361 - 363
  • [6] VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITIES
    ADAMOWICZ, WL
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS-REVUE CANADIENNE D ECONOMIE RURALE, 1991, 39 (04): : 609 - 618
  • [7] Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?
    Gyrd-Hansen, D.
    Kjaer, T.
    Nielsen, J. S.
    [J]. HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2012, 21 (02) : 101 - 112
  • [8] Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation
    Desvousges, William
    Mathews, Kristy
    Train, Kenneth
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2012, 84 : 121 - 128
  • [9] THE ISSUE OF SCOPE IN CONTINGENT VALUATION STUDIES
    CARSON, RT
    MITCHELL, RC
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1993, 75 (05) : 1263 - 1267
  • [10] Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation
    Whitehead, John C.
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2016, 128 : 17 - 22