Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation

Heberlein, Thomas A.; Wilson, Matthew A.; Bishop, Richard C.; Schaeffer, Nora Cate

doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2004.09.005

Cited by 150 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In examining whether the reported presence of woodpeckers can influence attitudes towards landscape scenarios, we found in both sample cities that a respondent who is informed that a particular course of action will provide a habitat for a great spotted woodpecker will tend to favour that course of action over actions that are less favourable for the species. The basic requirement in every scope test is that respondents receive a negative marginal utility of costs (Heberlein et al 2005), and it was found that willingness to pay decreased with cost increases. However, the Zurich woodpecker treatment groups were less strongly opposed to extra costs, and it appears that the perceived presence of a flagship species in Zurich encouraged a more altruistic mindset.…”

Section: Citymentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYFlagship species are among key marketing tools used by conservation organizations to motivate public support, but are often selected in an ad hoc, rather than systematic, manner. Furthermore, it is unclear whether selected flagship species do motivate public support. This paper describes a multi-method exploratory study, carried out in Switzerland, which aimed to determine the selection criteria for flagship species and measure whether a species selected according to these criteria was able to motivate support. Fourteen representatives of international, regional and local conservation organizations were interviewed and the selection criteria for their flagship species were identified. A charismatic species (the great spotted woodpecker) that meets these criteria and an apparently less charismatic species (the clover stem weevil) were selected as treatments in a quantitative experiment with 900 respondents. Using conjoint analysis, it was found that both charismatic and uncharismatic species have the ability to positively influence public preferences for habitat variables that encourage biodiversity in urban landscapes. These results may be used by conservation organizations to assist in the selection of flagship species, and in particular for flagship species that are intended to perform a specific conservation function.

show abstract

Section: Citymentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas the advocates of CVM argue that the lack of scale sensitivity is a result of bad survey design (Smith 1992;Carson and Mitchell 1995;Carson et al 2001), its critics argue that the CVM is not capable of eliciting individual preferences (Desvouges, Johnson et al 1993;Diamond and Hausman 1994;Kahneman et al 1999). Recent research suggests, however, that a general dismissal of the CVM on the basis of scale insensitivity is unwarranted, and that scale insensitivity can be in line with economic theory, and to be expected also in well conducted studies (Heberlein et al 2005). For instance, if respondents prefer to save 300 rather than 800 wolves (Heberlein, Wilson et al 2005, p.16), a standard scale test in a CVM-study would falsely reject that the WTP answers are valid estimates of the respondents' preferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scale sensitivity and question order in the contingent valuation method

Andersson

Svensson

2013

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the effect on respondents' willingness to pay to reduce mortality risk by the order of the question in a stated preference study. Using answers from an experiment conducted on a Swedish sample where respondents' cognitive ability was measured and where they participate in a contingent valuation survey it is found that scale sensitivity is the strongest when respondents are asked about a smaller risk reduction first ("Bottom-up" approach). This contradicts some previous evidence in the literature. It is also found that the respondents' cognitive ability is correlated with their answers being line with theoretical predictions. The latter being important for the validity of the answers. Hence, the results of this paper suggest that scale sensitivity is related to the order of the questions and to respondents' cognitive ability.

show abstract

“…Bateman et al (2004), Powe and Bateman (2004), and Heberlein et al (2005), provide explanations for scope test failures that might also be applicable to the adding-up test. As well as developing the explanations, steps are needed to derive an expanded theory of welfare that incorporates these explanations, or elicitation methods that avoid the behaviors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An adding-up test on contingent valuations of river and lake quality

Desvousges¹

2017

Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation

Cited by 150 publications

References 15 publications

Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations

Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations

Scale sensitivity and question order in the contingent valuation method

An adding-up test on contingent valuations of river and lake quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About