Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods

Insufficient sensitivity to scope (variations in the scale of the environmental good on offer) remains a major criticism of stated preference methods, and many studies fail a scope test of some sort. Across a range of existing explanations for insensitivity to scope (commodity mis-specification, embedding, warm glows) there seems to exist no clear conclusion on how to deal with the problem. This paper provides an alternative explanation for insufficient sensitivity to scope, based on re-definition of the determinants of value for environmental goods within an attributes-based choice model. In the proposed framework respondents’ Willingness To Pay need depend not only on physical characteristics of a good, but may also depend on the ‘label’ under which the environmental good is ‘sold’ in the hypothetical market. To investigate this problem, a Choice Experiment study of biodiversity was conducted. We find that controlling for the effects of a label—in this case, national park designation—leads to significant increase in the scope sensitivity of welfare measures.

[1]  E. Pouta,et al.  Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland , 2003 .

[2]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and developing Countries , 2001 .

[3]  P. Zarembka.  Frontiers in econometrics , 1973 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

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

[6]  N. Hanley,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment , 1998 .

[7]  S. Navrud,et al.  Valuing Forest Recreation on the National Level in a Transition Economy: The Case of Poland , 2008 .

[8]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[9]  R. Barro.  Are Government Bonds Net Wealth? , 1974, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

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

[12]  Holmes Rolston,et al.  Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World , 1987 .

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

[14]  W. Hutchinson,et al.  Some Further Implications of Incorporating the Warm Glow of Giving into Welfare Measures: A Comment on the Use of Donation Mechanisms by Champet al. , 1999 .

[15]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[16]  W. Greene,et al.  Specification and estimation of the nested logit model: alternative normalisations , 2002 .

[17]  W. Hanemann.  Applied Welfare Analysis with Qualitative Response Models , 1982 .

[18]  V. Smith,et al.  Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta Analysis , 1996 .

[19]  J. Andreoni.  Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[20]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments , 2005 .

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

[22]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments , 2003 .

[23]  G. Becker,et al.  A Theory of Social Interactions , 1974, Journal of Political Economy.

[24]  J. Roosen,et al.  Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food , 2007 .

[25]  Phoebe Koundouri,et al.  Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece , 2006 .

[26]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[27]  O. Johansson-Stenman,et al.  The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values , 1998 .

[28]  Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al.  Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment , 2005 .

[29]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions , 2005 .

[30]  B. Roe,et al.  Using Biomedical Technologies to Inform Economic Modeling: Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Analysis of Environmental Policies , 2007 .

[31]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies , 2000 .

[32]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Stated-Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 2008 .

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

[34]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement , 2004 .

[35]  S. B. Olsen,et al.  An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices , 2007 .

[36]  M. Olson,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action , 1965 .

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

[38]  Samuel M. McClure,et al.  Neural Correlates of Behavioral Preference for Culturally Familiar Drinks , 2004, Neuron.

[39]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[40]  Michael Creel,et al.  Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. , 1991 .

[41]  J. Rossiter,et al.  Advertising communications & promotion management , 1997 .

[42]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Unpopular essays on technological progress , 1980 .

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

[44]  C. Bhat.  Covariance heterogeneity in nested logit models: Econometric structure and application to intercity travel , 1997 .