How are Scope and Adding up Relevant for Benefits Transfer?

In this paper, we explore ways in which the theoretical constructs of scope and adding up can inform and improve the practice of benefit transfer. Specifically, we examine how the stated preference literature on scope and adding up can inform three critical steps in benefits transfer: study site selection, including studies to select for use in a meta-regression; calibrating benefit functions; and assessing transfer validity.

[1]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta-Analysis , 2005 .

[2]  K. Train,et al.  Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation , 2012 .

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

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

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

[6]  J. Siikamäki.  Contributions of the US state park system to nature recreation , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[8]  Alan Randall,et al.  A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation , 1987 .

[9]  R. Carson.  Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available , 2012 .

[10]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values - A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners , 2015 .

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

[12]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies , 2011 .

[13]  George Van Houtven,et al.  Benefit Transfer via Preference Calibration: “Prudential Algebra” for Policy , 2002, Land Economics.

[14]  Daniel J. Phaneuf,et al.  Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality , 2014 .

[15]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Willingness To Pay and Willingness To Accept: How Much Can They Differ? Comment , 2003 .

[16]  K. McConnell,et al.  Willingness to Accept, Willingness to Pay and the Income Effect , 2001 .

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

[18]  Robert D. Willig,et al.  Consumer's Surplus Without Apology , 1976 .

[19]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity , 2013 .

[20]  How much is clean water worth? Valuing water quality improvement using a meta analysis , 2013 .

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

[22]  K. Train,et al.  An Adding-up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality , 2015, Land Economics.

[23]  J. Whitehead.  Plausible Responsiveness To Scope In Contingent Valuation , 2016 .

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

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

[26]  R. Nayga,et al.  Validating consistency of non-hypothetical experimental auction data: application of the adding-up test in a multi-unit setting. , 2015 .

[27]  John C. Bergstrom,et al.  Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice , 2006 .

[28]  Jinhua Zhao,et al.  From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number? , 2012 .