A split-sample approach is employed to test three potential design options for contingent valuation studies. A survey of unpriced woodland recreation is undertaken to test: (a) the impact of introducing budget-constraint questions; (b) the effect of varying temporal extent from willingness to pay (WTP) per annum to WTP per visit; and (c) the consequences of varying the order in which such WTP questions are presented to respondents. Some significant design effects are detected. Alternative explanations of such findings are considered and implications discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArrowK J, 1982, “Risk perception in psychology and economics”Economic Inquiry201–9
2.
ArrowK JSolowRPortneyP RLearnerE ERadnerRSchumanE H, 1993, “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation”Federal Register584602–4614
3.
BatemanI JLangfordI H, 1995, “Design effects in contingent valuation studies”, WP-95-02, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich, and University College, London
4.
BatemanI JBrainardJ SLovettA A, 1995a, “Modelling woodland recreation demand using geographical information systems: a benefit transfer study”, WP-95-06, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich, and University College, London
5.
BatemanI JLangfordI HGrahamA W K, 1995b, “A survey of non-users willingness to pay to prevent saline flooding in the Norfolk Broads”, WP-95-11, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich, and University College, London
6.
BatemanI JLangfordI HTurnerR KWillisK GGarrodG D, 1995c, “Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies”Ecological Economics12161–179
7.
BishopK D, 1992, “Assessing the benefits of community forests: an evaluation of the recreational use benefits of two urban fringe woodlands”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management35(1) 63–76
8.
BoyleK JBishopR CWelshM P, 1985, “Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games”Land Economics61188–194
9.
BoyleK JReilingS DPhillipsM L, 1990, “Species substitution and question sequencing in contingent-valuation surveys evaluating the hunting of several species of wildlife”Leisure Science12103–118
10.
BoyleK JWelshM PBishopR C, 1993, “The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management25S80–S99
11.
BrennanGBuchananJ M, 1984, “Voter choice”American Behavioural Scientist28185–201
12.
BrookshireD Sd'ArgeR CSchulzeW DThayerM A, 1981, “Experiments in valuing public goods”, in Advances in Applied Microeconomics: Volume 1 Ed. SmithV K (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) pp 123–172
CarsonR TMitchellR C, 1993, “The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water”Water Resources Research292445–2454
15.
CarsonR TMitchellR C, 1995, “Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management28155–173
16.
CarsonR TFloresN EHanemannW M, 1992, “On the creation and destruction of public goods: the matter of sequencing”, paper presented at the Third Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Cracow, Poland; copy available from R T Carson, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093-0508, USA
17.
CarsonR THanemannW MKoppR JKrosnickJ AMitchellR CPresserSRuudP ASmithV K, 1995, “Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation”, DP-95-37, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
18.
CummingsR GBrookshireD SSchulzeW D, 1986Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent-valuation Method (Rowman and Littlefield, Savage, MD)
19.
DeatonAMuellbauerJ, 1980Economics and Consumer Behaviour (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
20.
DesvousgesW HJohnsonF RDunfordR WBoyleK JHudsonS PWilsonK N, 1993, “Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability”, in Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment Ed. HausmanJ A (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 91–164
21.
DiamondP AHausmanJ ALeonardG KDenningM A, 1993, “Does contingent valuation measure preferences?: experimental evidence”, in Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment Ed. HausmanJ A (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 41–90
22.
EfronBTibshiraniR J, 1993An Introduction to the Bootstrap (Chapman and Hall, New York)
23.
KahnemanDKnetschJ L, 1992, “Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management2257–70
24.
KahnemanDTverskyA, 1984, “Choices, values and frames”American Psychologist39341–350
25.
KahnemanDSlovicPTverskyA (Eds), 1982Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge University Press, New York)
26.
LangfordI H, 1994, “Using a generalized linear mixed model to analyze dichotomous choice contingent valuation data”Land Economics70507–514
27.
LoomisJ BGonzalez-CabanAGregoryR, 1994, “Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates?”Land Economics70499–506
28.
MitchellR CCarsonR T, 1989Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC)
29.
RandallAHoehnJ P, 1992, “Embedding effects in contingent valuation: implications for natural resource damage assessment”, staff paper 92-14, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
30.
RandallAHoehnJ P, 1996, “Embedding in market demand systems”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management30369–380
31.
SchkadeD APayneP W, 1994, “How people respond to contingent valuation questions”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management2688–109
32.
SchulzeW DCummingsR GBrookshireD SThayerM HWhitworthR LRahmatianM, 1983, “Experimental approaches to valuing environmental commodities: volume II”, draft final report for Methods Development in measuring Benefits of Environmental Improvements, US Environmental Protection Agency grant CR808-893-01; copy available from US EPA, Washington, DC
33.
SmithV K, 1992, “Arbitrary values, good causes and premature verdicts”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management2271–89
34.
SugdenR, 1997, “Public goods and contingent valuation”, in Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences: Assessing Theory and Practice in the US, EU and Developing Countries Eds BatemanI JWillisK G (Oxford University Press, Oxford) forthcoming
35.
TverskyASattathSSlovicP, 1988, “Contingent weighting in judgement and choice”Psychological Review95371–384
36.
WillisK GGarrodG D, 1993, “Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach”Journal of Environmental Management371–22
