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

• Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80: 64–75

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Am J Agric Econ 26: 271–292

  Google Scholar 

• Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8(1): 83–110

  Google Scholar 

• Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58(10): 4601–4614

  Google Scholar 

• Bateman I, Brouwer R (2006) Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: a novel scope-sensitivity test. Res Energy Econ 28: 199–214

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, Hanemann W, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce D, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Northampton

  Google Scholar 

• Bateman I, Cole M, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Hadley D, Poe G (2004) On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. J Environ Econ Manage 47: 71–93

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bateman I, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Navrud S, Poe G, Ready R, Riera P, Ryan M, Vossler C (2005) Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquat Sci 67: 274–291

  Google Scholar 

• Berrens R, Bohara A, Silva C, Brookshire D, McKee M (2000) Contingent values for new Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. J Environ Manage 58: 73–90

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Berrens R, Ganderton P, Silva C (1996) Valuing the protection of minimum instream flows in new Mexico. J Agric Res Econ 21(2): 294–309

  Google Scholar 

• Carson R (1997) Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Kopp R, Pommerhene W, Schwartz N (eds) Determining the value of non-marketed goods: economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods. Kluwer, Boston

  Google Scholar 

• Carson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environ Res Econ 37: 181–210

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Carson R, Mitchell R (1993) The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. Am J Agric Econ 75(5): 1263–1267

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Carson R, Mitchell R (1995) Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manage 28: 155–173

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Carson R, Flores N, Hanemann W (1998) Sequencing and valuing public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 36: 314–323

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cummings R, Taylor L (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649–665

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Czajkowski M, Hanley N (2009) Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Env Res Econ, Online First

• Desvousges W, Johnson F, Dunford R, Boyle K, Hudson S, Wilson K (1993) Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. In: Hausman J (eds) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North Holland Publishers, Amsterdam

  Google Scholar 

• Diamond P, Hausman J, Leonard G, Denning M (1993) Does contingent valuation measure preferences? experimental evidence. In: Hausman J (eds) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North Holland Publishers, Amsterdam

  Google Scholar 

• Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley, New York

  Google Scholar 

• Fischhoff B, Furby L (1988) Measuring values: a conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. J Risk Uncertain 1(2): 147–184

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fischhoff B, Quadrel M, Kamlet M, Loewenstein G, Dawes R, Fischbeck P, Klepper S, Leland J, Stroh P (1993) Embedding effects: stimulus representation and response mode. J Risk Uncertain 6: 211–234

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Giraud K, Loomis J, Johnson R (1999) Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. J Environ Manage 56: 221–229

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hammitt J (2000) Evaluating contingent valuation of environmental health risks: the proportionality test. Assoc Environ Res Econ Newslett 20(1): 14–19

  Google Scholar 

• Hammitt J, Graham J (1999) Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to scope?. J Risk Uncertain 8: 33–62

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hanley N, Wright R, Adamowicz W (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues, current experience, and future prospects. Environ Res Econ 11(3–4): 413–428

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Heberlein T, Wilson M, Bishop R, Schaeffer N (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 50: 1–22

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Herriges J, Kling C (1999) Nonlinear income effects in random utility models. Rev Econ Stat 81(1): 62–72

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 33(3): 307–317

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kahneman D (1986) Comments. In: Cummings R, Brookshire D, Schuze W (eds) Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa

  Google Scholar 

• Kahneman D, Knetsch J (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage 22: 57–70

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Layton D (2000) Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys. J Environ Econ Manage 40: 21–36

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Layton D, Brown G, Plummer M (2001) Valuing multiple programs to improve fish populations. Unpublished report to the Washington state department of ecology

• Layton D, Levine R (2005) Bayesian approaches to modeling stated preference data. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Springer, Dordrecht

  Google Scholar 

• Leiter A, Pruckner G (2009) Proportionality of willingness to pay to small changes in risk: the impact of attitudinal factors in scope tests. Env Res Econ 42: 169–186

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lew D, Layton D, Rowe R (2010) Valuing enhancements to endangered species protection under alternative baseline futures: the case of the steller sea lion. Mar Res Econ 25: 133–154

  Google Scholar 

• Loomis J, Ekstrand E (1997) Economic benefits of critical habitat for the mexican spotted owl: a scope test using a multiple-bounded contingent valuation survey. J Agric Res Econ 22(2): 356–366

  Google Scholar 

• Loomis J, Larson D (1994) Total economic values of increasing gray whale populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Mar Res Econ 9: 275–286

  Google Scholar 

• Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods—analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Morey E, Rowe R, Watson M (1993) A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic Salmon fishing. Am J Agric Econ 75: 578–592

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Olar M, Adamowicz W, Boxall P, West G (2007) Estimation of the economic benefits of Marine mammal recovery in the St. Lawrence Estuary. Report to the policy and economics branch, fisheries and oceans Canada, regional branch Quebec

• Poe G, Giraud K, Loomis J (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agric Econ 87(2): 353–365

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Poe G, Severance-Lossin E, Welsh M (1994) Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach. Am J Agric Econ 76(4): 904–915

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Reaves D, Kramer R, Holmes T (1999) Does question format matter? Valuing an endangered species. Environ Res Econ 14: 365–383

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68: 1535–1548

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rollins K, Lyke A (1998) The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J Environ Econ Manage 36: 324–344

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rudd M (2009) National values for regional aquatic species at risk in canada. Endanger Species Res 6: 239–249

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Samples K, Hollyer J (1990) Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. In: Johnson R, Johnson G (eds) Economic valuation of natural resources: issues, theory, and applications. West View Press, Boulder, pp 177–193

  Google Scholar 

• Schkade D, Payne J (1994) How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manage 26: 88–109

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Siikamaki J, Layton D (2007) Discrete choice survey experiments: a comparison using flexible methods. J Environ Econ Manage 53: 122–139

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Smith V (1992) Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. J Environ Econ Manage 22: 71–89

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Smith V, Osborne L (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a ‘Scope’ test? A meta-analysis. J Environ Econ Manage 31: 287–301

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Train K (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ 74(2): 230–239

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Train K (2003) Discrete Choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Veisten K, Hoen H, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manage 73: 314–331

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references