The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing

This paper provides further empirical evidence of the validity of environmental benefits transfer based on CV studies by expanding the analysis to include control factors which have not been accounted for in previous studies. These factors refer to differences in respondent attitudes. Traditional population characteristics were taken into account, but these variables do not explain why respondents from the same socio-economic group may still hold different beliefs, norms or values and hence have different attitudes and consequently state different WTP amounts. The test results are mixed. The function transfer approach is valid in one case, but is rejected in the 3 other cases investigated in this paper. We provide further evidence that in the case of statistically valid benefits transfer, the function approach results in a more robust benefits transfer than the unit value approach. We also show that the equality of coefficient estimates is a necessary, but insufficient condition for valid benefit function transfer and discuss the implications for previous and future validity testing.

[1]  Gregory K. Leonard,et al.  DOES CONTINGENT VALUATION MEASURE PREFERENCES , 1993 .

[2]  Richard G. Walsh,et al.  Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation demand studies, 1968–1988 , 1992 .

[3]  Bruce E. Lindsay,et al.  Use of the tobit model in contingent valuation : experimental evidence from the pemigewasset wilderness area , 1991 .

[4]  J. Cramer.  Econometric Applications of Maximum Likelihood Methods , 1986 .

[5]  Mary Jo Kealy,et al.  Benefits Transfer in a Random Utility Model of Recreation , 1994 .

[6]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[7]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Testing Transferability of Recreation Demand Models Across Regions: A Study of Corps of Engineer Reservoirs , 1995 .

[8]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies , 1999 .

[9]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[10]  John B. Loomis,et al.  The Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefit Transfer: Benefit Function Transfer , 1992 .

[11]  George R. Parsons,et al.  Benefits transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies , 1992 .

[12]  Gregory K. Leonard,et al.  Chapter II – Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence , 1993 .

[13]  Bonnie G. Colby,et al.  Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry , 1997 .

[14]  Teofilo Ozuna,et al.  Testing the Reliability of the Benefit Function Transfer Approach , 1996 .

[15]  R. Brouwer.  The Measurement of the non-Marketable Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of the Dutch Peat Meadow Land , 1994 .

[16]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods , 1995 .

[17]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis , 1996 .

[18]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Benefit transfer studies: Myths, pragmatism, and idealism , 1992 .

[19]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[20]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  What have we learned since hotelling's letter?: A meta-analysis , 1990 .

[21]  V. Smith,et al.  Can Markets Value Air Quality? A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Property Value Models , 1995, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  Hedley Rees,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1985 .