What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation

The ecological literature accepts that many policy outcomes cannot be observed directly and must be characterized using indicators. Multiple indicators can often be used to communicate similar ecological outcomes. Previous studies using alternative indicators in stated preference surveys suggest that welfare estimates may be indicator-dependent, casting doubt on whether welfare estimates are sufficiently reliable for cost benefit analysis. We suggest that the reason for such indicator dependence may be that indicators used in these prior studies represented different outcomes valued by respondents. This possibility underscores the need for greater attention to selection of indicators and their properties within stated preference survey design. This paper develops a model introducing the concept of outcome equivalent indicators, defined as indicators that provide alternative representations of identical underlying outcomes. To assess empirically whether welfare estimates are indeed robust to indicator choice when alternative indicators are expected to be outcome equivalent, we analyze data from a choice experiment estimating willingness to pay for migratory fish restoration in Rhode Island, USA. Results demonstrate that welfare estimates are robust to the use of alternative ecological indicators within stated preference scenarios.