Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects

This paper addresses the question, whether attribute values derived from a CE study of one nature restoration and preservation project depend on the overall scale of nature preservation activities in which it is embedded. A split-sample CE study was undertaken in which a particular nature preservation project was evaluated in three plausible and strictly different embedding contexts. Respondents' attention was drawn to a varying number of forthcoming substitute preservation projects to be implemented prior to the one in question. Results show that while WTP for the project in focus is sensitive to the presentation of substitute projects as such, there does not seem to be any clear and unidirectional relationship between WTP and the number of substitute projects. Furthermore, effects vary across the project's attributes.

[1]  John M. Rose,et al.  Design Efficiency for Non-Market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure it, What to Report and Why , 2008 .

[2]  Søren Bøye Olsen,et al.  Handling respondent uncertainty in Choice Experiments: Evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modelling of uncertainty , 2009 .

[3]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models , 2005 .

[4]  K. Sælensminde.  Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods , 2003 .

[5]  Danny Campbell,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models , 2007 .

[6]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .

[7]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation , 2003 .

[8]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Ordering effects in nested ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ contingent valuation designs , 2003 .

[9]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism , 2004, Land Economics.

[10]  Jeremy Clark,et al.  VALUATION SURVEYS: AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION , 2006 .

[11]  Maria L. Loureiro,et al.  Valuing local endangered species: The role of intra-species substitutes , 2008 .

[12]  Elisabetta Strazzera,et al.  Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach , 2005 .

[13]  R. Carson,et al.  Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1995 .

[14]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates , 1994 .

[15]  K. Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[16]  Miroslav Verbič,et al.  An Econometric Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of the Volcji Potok Landscape Area. ENEPRI Working Paper, No. 53, 3 May 2007 , 2007 .

[17]  P. Boxall,et al.  Complexity in Choice Experiments: Choice of the Status Quo Alternative and Implications for Welfare Measurement , 2009 .

[18]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps , 2008 .

[19]  Denzil G. Fiebig,et al.  The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[20]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation , 1997 .

[21]  Jette Bredahl Jacobsen,et al.  What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity , 2008 .

[22]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation , 2005 .

[23]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models , 2009 .

[24]  B. Thorsen,et al.  Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. , 2010 .

[25]  V. Smith,et al.  Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts , 1992 .

[26]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife , 1999 .

[27]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Valuation of Wildlife: Revising Some Additional Considerations for Scope Tests , 2009 .

[28]  K. Train,et al.  Utility in WTP Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps , 2006 .

[29]  Susana Mourato,et al.  Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope , 2003 .

[30]  H. Neill.  The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations , 1995 .

[31]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation , 1994 .

[32]  Peter A. Diamond,et al.  Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1996 .

[33]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[34]  Michel Bierlaire,et al.  BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models , 2003 .

[35]  Knut Veisten,et al.  Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.

[36]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[37]  P. Boxall,et al.  Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation , 2000 .

[38]  Thomas A. Heberlein,et al.  Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope , 2001 .

[39]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Values and Reminders of Substitute Goods: Testing for Framing Effects with Choice Modelling , 2002 .

[40]  K. Rollins,et al.  The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values , 1998 .

[41]  J. Andreoni.  IMPURE ALTRUISM AND DONATIONS TO PUBLIC GOODS: A THEORY OF WARM-GLOW GIVING* , 1990 .

[42]  Carsten Rahbek,et al.  A Quantitative Analysis of Biodiversity and the Recreational Value of Potential National Parks in Denmark , 2008, Environmental management.

[43]  D. Dupont.  CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods , 2003 .

[44]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Substitution Effects in CVM Values , 1994 .

[45]  Alan Randall,et al.  Embedding in market demand systems , 1996 .

[46]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity , 2004 .

[47]  Edoh Y. Amiran,et al.  The scope trials: Variation in sensitivity to scope and WTP with directionally bounded utility functions , 2010 .

[48]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods , 2009 .