External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation

A criticism often levied against stated preference (SP) valuation results is that they sometimes do not display sensitivity to differences in the magnitude or scope of the good being valued. In this study, we test the sensitivity of preferences for several proposed expanded protection programs that would protect up to three US Endangered Species Act-listed species: the Puget Sound Chinook salmon, the smalltooth sawfish, and the Hawaiian monk seal. An external scope test is employed via a split-sample SP choice experiment survey to evaluate whether there is a significant difference in willingness to pay (WTP) for protecting more species and/or achieving greater improvements in the status of the species. The majority of 46 scope tests indicate sensitivity to scope, and the pattern of scope test failures is consistent with diminishing marginal utility with respect to the amount of protection to each species. Further tests suggest WTP may be proportional to the number of species valued.

[1]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1987 .

[2]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method , 1999 .

[3]  J. Siikamäki,et al.  Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models , 2007 .

[4]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows : With tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability , 2000 .

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

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

[7]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability , 1993 .

[8]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies , 1993 .

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

[10]  A. Leiter,et al.  Proportionality of Willingness to Pay to Small Changes in Risk: The Impact of Attitudinal Factors in Scope Tests , 2009 .

[11]  J. Payne,et al.  How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation , 1994 .

[12]  Richard A. Levine,et al.  Bayesian Approaches to Modeling Stated Preference Data , 2005 .

[13]  D. Dillman.  Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[14]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models , 1999, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[15]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .

[16]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Embedding effects: Stimulus representation and response mode , 1993 .

[17]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Valuing the Protection of Minimum Instream Flows in New Mexico , 1996 .

[18]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[19]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[20]  David F. Layton,et al.  Valuing Multiple Programs to Improve Fish Populations , 1999 .

[21]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods , 2012 .

[22]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility , 1988 .

[23]  Edward R. Morey,et al.  A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing , 1993 .

[24]  F. Carlsson,et al.  Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation , 2001 .

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

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

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

[28]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: Examining validity through scope sensitivity testing , 2005, Aquatic Sciences.

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

[30]  I. Bateman.  Economic valuation with stated preference techniques : a manual : department for transport , 2002 .

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

[32]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

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

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

[35]  M. Rudd.  National values for regional aquatic species at risk in Canada , 2009 .

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

[37]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope , 1995 .

[38]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Incentive and informational properties of preference questions , 2007 .

[39]  K. Train.  Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People , 1998 .

[40]  I. Bateman,et al.  Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: A novel scope-sensitivity test , 2006 .

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

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

[43]  K. Train.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[44]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods , 1998 .

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

[46]  Rebecca Lynn Johnson,et al.  Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory, and Applications, Rebecca L. Johnson and Gary V. Johnson, eds. 1990. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 240 pages. ISBN: 0-8133-7838-9. $32.50 , 1990 .

[47]  R. Rowe,et al.  Valuing Enhancements to Endangered Species Protection under Alternative Baseline Futures: The Case of the Steller Sea Lion , 2010, Marine Resource Economics.

[48]  J. Loomis,et al.  The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis , 2009 .

[49]  J. Loomis,et al.  Total Economic Values of Increasing Gray Whale Populations: Results from a Contingent Valuation Survey of Visitors and Households , 1994, Marine Resource Economics.

[50]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Implementing the Convolutions Approach: A Companion to "Measuring the Difference (X-Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach" , 1994 .

[51]  J. Graham,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability? , 1999 .

[52]  Randall A. Kramer,et al.  Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species , 1999 .

[53]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[54]  John B. Loomis,et al.  ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL: A SCOPE TEST USING A MULTIPLE-BOUNDED CONTINGENT VALUATION SURVEY , 1997 .

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

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

[57]  David F. Layton,et al.  Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys , 2000 .