Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation

Abstract

Plausible responsiveness to scope is a question of economic significance, in addition to statistical significance, of the scope test in contingent valuation. We briefly review the history of the scope test in order to place the current issue in the context of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As a result of the review we gain insights into how the issue of scope "adequacy" arose twenty years after it was first mentioned by the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. We then provide a review of Desvousges, Mathews and Train (2012) who promote the adding-up test to identify inadequate responsiveness to scope adequacy. The adding-up test is a test of the construct validity of the contingent valuation method but is flawed as a measure of economic significance. We propose scope elasticity of willingness-to-pay as a measure of economic significance. A simulation suggests a likely range of elasticity estimates given linear and quadratic functional forms for the willingness-to-pay function. In order to illustrate the ease of implementation of scope elasticity within the context of the standard scope test we calculate scope elasticity with willingness-to-pay estimates from several studies, describe two studies that directly estimate scope elasticity and estimate scope elasticity with primary data from two studies. All of these empirical estimates of scope elasticity fall within the range of scope elasticity suggested by the simulation. Scope elasticity provides a practical way forward, relative to the adding up test, on the issue of economic significance of scope effects. t r a c tPlausible responsiveness to scope is a question of economic significance, in addition to statistical significance, of the scope test in contingent valuation. We briefly review the history of the scope test in order to place the current issue in the context of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As a result of the review we gain insights into how the issue of scope "adequacy" arose twenty years after it was first mentioned by the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. We then provide a review of Desvousges, Mathews and Train (2012) who promote the adding-up test to identify inadequate responsiveness to scope adequacy. The adding-up test is a test of the construct validity of the contingent valuation method but is flawed as a measure of economic significance. We propose scope elasticity of willingness-to-pay as a measure of economic significance. A simulation suggests a likely range of elasticity estimates given linear and quadratic functional forms for the willingness-to-pay function. In order to illustrate the ease of implementation of scope elasticity within the context of the standard scope test we calculate scope elasticity with willingness-to-pay estimates from several studies, describe two studies that directly estimate scope elasticity and estimate scope elasticity with primary data from two studies. All of these empirical estimates of scope elasticity fall with...

Valuing Multiple Benefits, and the Public Perception of SUDS Ponds

“…Contingent valuation is usually used in local planning policy and provides respondents with a hypothetical scenario where they are asked to state their willingness to pay for an improvement to an environmental issue or programme [13] with an appropriate payment vehicle (e.g., taxation, annual or monthly payments). Contingent valuation is inexpensive, requires no market data, and is thus useful for decision making at a local scale [14] but there could be bias involved with some participants providing unrealistic ('pleasing') responses to valuation questions [15]. Furthermore, there may be issues with response and non-response bias which may produce unreliable surveys [13,15].…”

On Scope Effects in Contingent Valuation: Does the Statistical Distributional Assumption Matter?

“…The debate has recently gone further in Ecological Economics with Whitehead (2016), Chapman et al (2016) and Desvousges et al (2016) about adequacy, rather than the very existence of the scope responsiveness. We argue that the debate on the existence of scope effects is not closed yet and that studies with mixed conclusions will continue to appear also with Whitehead's (2016) new plausibility test. We therefore recommend to pay particular attention to the assumed statistical distribution of WTP, since it has a major incidence on the detection of scope effects.…”

“…Open-ended formats, despite biases, could also reasonably be used for this purpose. For small sample sizes, a nonparametric analysis, a spike model or an open-ended format can 17 The adding-up test requires to value 3 scopes such that A=B+C (Whitehead, 2016).…”

Public Acceptability of Introducing a Biogas Mandate in Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study

“…The CV technique has been very widely applied in the literature to obtain the WTP for non-market goods [16,17] and environmental goods [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Refer to Carson and Hanemann [34] for a better understanding of the CV technique and its implementation.…”