The adoption of good practices for the economic valuation of environmental services (ES) has strong implications in the evaluation and design of a Payment for Environmental Services program. People’s willingness to pay for an ES is useful to evaluate whether money collected from users will be enough to cover both the providers’ opportunity costs and other costs generated by the institutional arrangements required for implementation. In this article, we use a numerical certainty scale to adjust answers to a valuation question aiming to correct for hypothetical bias associated with stated preference methods. Following this approach, the mean willingness to pay decreases by approximately 70%. Values that are more conservative could assure greater political and social support for the program because more ES users would want to participate in the program; simultaneously, however, it might suggest that the project is not completely funded.
AadlandD.CaplanA. J. (2004) Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions: Comment. Land Economics80(2): 312–315.
2.
AkterS.BennettJ.AkhterS. (2008) Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics67(3): 345–351.
3.
AnnaA. C. S.NogueiraJ. M. (2012) Economic valuation of environmental services: Increasing the effectiveness of PES schemes in developing countries?Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology A2(9A): 1048.
4.
ArnoldJ. G.SrinivasanR.MuttiahR. S.WilliamsJ. R. (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: Model development1, New York, NY: Wiley Online Library.
5.
ArrowK.SolowR. (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
6.
BallesteroR. M.RodríguezF. A. (2008) Diseño y gestión adaptativa de un programa de pagos por servicios ecosistémicos en Copán Ruinas, Honduras [Adaptative design and management of a payment for ecosystem services scheme in Copan Ruinas, Honduras]. Investigación agraria. Sistemas y recursos forestales17(1): 79–90.
7.
BatemanI. J.WillisK. G.ArrowK. J. (2001) Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
8.
Berggren, M., & Sthal, S. (2003). Paying for environmental services: A choice experiment of water in Turrialba, Costa Rica (Thesis Mag. Sc). Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
9.
BishopR. C.HeberleinT. A. (1979) Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased?American Journal of Agricultural Economics61: 926–930.
10.
BlomquistG. C.BlumenscheinK.JohannessonM. (2009) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: Comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale. Environmental and Resource Economics43(4): 473–502.
11.
BlumenscheinK.BlomquistG. C.JohannessonM.HornN.FreemanP. (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment. The Economic Journal118(525): 114–137.
12.
BrownT. C.AjzenI.HrubesD. (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management46(2): 353–361.
13.
CarsonR. T. (2012) Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. The Journal of Economic Perspectives26(4): 27–42.
14.
CarsonR. T.FloresN. E.HanemannW. M. (1998) Sequencing and valuing public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management36(3): 314–323.
15.
CarsonR. T.GrovesT. (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics37(1): 181–210.
16.
CarsonR. T.MitchellR. C. (1995) Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management28(2): 155–173.
17.
CarsonR. T.MitchellR. C.HanemannM.KoppR. J.PresserS.RuudP. A. (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental and Resource Economics25(3): 257–286.
18.
ChampP. A.BishopR. C. (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: An empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics19(4): 383–402.
19.
ChampP. A.BishopR. C.BrownT. C.McCollumD. W. (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management33(2): 151–162.
20.
ChampP. A.BoyleK. J.BrownT. C. (2003) A primer on nonmarket valuation, Berlin, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21.
Champ, P. A., Moore, R., & Bishop, R. C. (2004). Hypothetical bias: The mitigating effects of certainty questions and cheap talk. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual meeting, August 1–4, Denver, CO.
22.
CooperJ. C. (1993) Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management24(1): 25–40.
23.
CummingsR. G.TaylorL. O. (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review89: 649–665.
24.
De GrootR. S.WilsonM. A.BoumansR. M. (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics41(3): 393–408.
25.
DesvousgesW.JohnsonF. R.DunfordR. W.BoyleK. J.HudsonS. P.WilsonK. N. (1993) Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability. In: HausmanJ. A. (ed.) Contingent valuation: A critical assessment, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 91–93.
26.
DesvousgesW.MathewsK.TrainK. (2016) From curious to pragmatically curious: Comment on “From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s ‘Dubious to Hopeless’ Critique of Contingent Valuation.”. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy38(1): 174–182.
27.
DiamondP.HausmanJ.LeonardG.DenningM. (1993) Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. In: HausmanJ. A. (ed.) Contingent valuation: A critical assessment, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 41.
28.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for business—Executive summary, Mriehel, Malta: Progress Press.
29.
Engel, S. (2015). The devil in the detail: A practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2712376.
30.
EngelS.PagiolaS.WunderS. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics65(4): 663–674.
31.
EthierR. G.PoeG. L.SchulzeW. D.ClarkJ. (2000) A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Economics76: 54–67.
32.
HaabT. C.InterisM. G.PetroliaD. R.WhiteheadJ. C. (2013) From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “dubious to hopeless” critique of contingent valuation. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy35(4)
33.
HaabT. C.InterisM. G.PetroliaD. R.WhiteheadJ. C. (2016) Interesting questions worthy of further study: Our reply to Desvousges, Mathews, and Train’s (2015) comment on our thoughts (2013) on Hausman’s (2012) update of Diamond and Hausman’s (1994) critique of contingent valuation. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy38(1): 183–189.
34.
HaabT. C.McConnellK. (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: The econometrics of non-market valuation. New horizons in environmental economics, Chelthenham, England: Edward Elgar.
35.
HanemannW. M. (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics66(3): 332–341.
36.
HanemannW. M. (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives8: 19–43.
37.
HanemannW. M.KanninenB. (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: BatemanI. J.WillisK. G. (eds) Valuing environmental preferences. Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, pp. 302–441.
38.
HausmanJ. (2012) Contingent valuation: From dubious to hopeless. The Journal of Economic Perspectives26: 43–56.
39.
IbischP. L.AraujoN.NowickiC. (2007) Visión de conservación de la biodiversidad del Corredor Amboró-Madidi. Editorial FAN, Santa Cruz de la Sierra. FAN/WWF/TNC/CI [Biodiversity Conservation Vision for the Amboró-Madidi Corridor. Editorial FAN, Santa Cruz de la Sierra. FAN/WWF/TNC/CI.], Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia: Editorial FAN.
40.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2001) Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda 2001Vol. 4, La Paz, Bolivia: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.
41.
JinJ.WangZ.LiuX. (2008) Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study. Ecological Economics68(1): 328–335.
42.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ. L. (1992) Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management22(1): 57–70.
43.
KosoyN.CorberaE. (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics69(6): 1228–1236.
44.
KosoyN.Martinez-TunaM.MuradianR.Martinez-AlierJ. (2007) Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics61(2): 446–455.
45.
ListJ. A. (2001) Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. The American Economic Review91(5): 1498–1507.
46.
ListJ. A.GalletC. A. (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?Environmental and Resource Economics20(3): 241–254.
47.
LittleJ.BerrensR. (2004) Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin3(6): 1–13.
48.
LoomisJ.BrownT.LuceroB.PetersonG. (1996) Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: Results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay. Land Economics72: 450–461.
49.
LoureiroM. L.OjeaE. (2008) Valuing local endangered species: The role of intra-species substitutes. Ecological Economics68(1): 362–369.
50.
LouviereJ. J.HensherD. A.SwaitJ. D. (2000) Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
51.
LuskJ. L. (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics85(4): 840–856.
52.
Martin-OrtegaJ.OjeaE.RouxC. (2013) Payments for water ecosystem services in Latin America: A literature review and conceptual model. Ecosystem Services6: 122–132.
53.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Millennium ecosystem assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis, Washington, DC: Island Press.
54.
MilneS.AdamsB. (2012) Market masquerades: Uncovering the politics of community-level payments for environmental services in Cambodia. Development and Change43(1): 133–158.
55.
MitchellR. C.CarsonR. T. (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
56.
Moreno-SanchezR.MaldonadoJ. H.WunderS.Borda-AlmanzaC. (2012) Heterogeneous users and willingness to pay in an ongoing payment for watershed protection initiative in the Colombian Andes. Ecological Economics75: 126–134.
57.
Muñoz-PiñaC.GuevaraA.TorresJ. M.BrañaJ. (2008) Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics65(4): 725–736.
58.
NaeemS.IngramJ.VargaA.AgardyT.BartenP.BennettG.WunderS. (2015) Get the science right when paying for nature’s services. Science347(6227): 1206–1207.
59.
NunesP. A. (2002) The contingent valuation of natural parks: Assessing the warmglow propensity factor, Chelthenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
60.
Ortega-PachecoD. V.LupiF.KaplowitzM. D. (2009) Payment for environmental services: Estimating demand within a tropical watershed. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research1(2): 189–202.
61.
Ovando, A. (2009). Modelación Hidrológica de la Cuenca del río Piraí [Hydrologic Modeling of the Piraí River Basin]. In F. A. d. l. N. FAN-Bolivia (Ed.), Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza. Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia: FAN-Bolivia.
62.
PagiolaS. (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological economics65(4): 712–724.
63.
PattanayakS. K.WunderS.FerraroP. J. (2010) Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?Review of Environmental Economics and Policy4(2): 254–274.
64.
PayneJ. W.SchkadeD. A.DesvousgesW. H.AultmanC. (2000) Valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty21(1): 95–115.
65.
PoeG. L.ClarkJ. E.RondeauD.SchulzeW. D. (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics23(1): 105–131.
66.
RandallA.HoehnJ. P. (1996) Embedding in market demand systems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management30(3): 369–380.
67.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2009). Connecting biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Report of the second ad hoc technical expert group on biodiversity and climate change (41st ed., pp. 1–126). Montreal, PQ, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
68.
Seiler, C. (2009). Función climática e hidrológica de la cobertura boscosa de Amboró-Carrasco y la Cuenca alta y media del Río Piraí en Bolivia [Climatic and hydrologic functions of the land cover in the Amboró – Carrasco and the Piraí River Basin in Bolivia]. In F. A. d. l. N. FAN-Bolivia (Ed.), Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza. Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia: FAN-Bolivia.
69.
SeipK.StrandJ. (1992) Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment. Environmental and Resource Economics2(1): 91–106.
70.
SierraR.RussmanE. (2006) On the efficiency of environmental service payments: A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecological Economics59(1): 131–141.
71.
SmithK. (1992) Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management22(1): 71–89.
72.
SouthgateD.WunderS. (2007) Paying for watershed services in Latin America: A review of current initiatives, Blacksburg, VA: SANREM CRSP, OIRED.
73.
Van HeckenG.BastiaensenJ.VásquezW. F. (2012) The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua. Ecological Economics74: 169–176.
74.
Whitehead, J. (2013). From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “dubious to hopeless” critique of contingent valuation.
75.
WhittingtonD. (2002) Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental and Resource Economics22(1–2): 323–367.
76.
WhittingtonD.PagiolaS. (2012) Using contingent valuation in the design of payments for environmental services mechanisms: A review and assessment. The World Bank Research Observer27: 261–281.
77.
WunderS. (2013) When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conservation Letters6(4): 230–237.
78.
WunderS. (2015) Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics117: 234–243.
79.
WunderS.EngelS.PagiolaS. (2008) Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics65(4): 834–852.
80.
WünscherT.EngelS.WunderS. (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecological Economics65(4): 822–833.
81.
ZhongminX.GuodongC.ZhiqiangZ.ZhiyongS.LoomisJ. (2003) Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecological Economics44(2): 345–358.
