IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v50y1999i1p1-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Divergence Between Respondent and Researcher Definitions of the Good in Contingent Valuation Studies

Author

Listed:
  • S. M. Chilton
  • W. G. Hutchinson

Abstract

In Contingent Valuation studies, researchers often base their definition of the environmental good on scientific/expert consensus. However, respondents may not hold this same commodity definition prior to the transaction. This raises questions as to the potential for staging a satisfactory transaction, based on Fischoff and Furby's (1988) criteria. Some unresolved issues regarding the provision of information to respondents to facilitate such a transaction are highlighted. In this paper, we apply content analysis to focus group discussions and develop a set of rules which take account of the non‐independence of group data to explore whether researcher and respondents' prior definitions are in any way similar. We use the results to guide information provision in a subsequent questionnaire.

Suggested Citation

  • S. M. Chilton & W. G. Hutchinson, 1999. "Exploring Divergence Between Respondent and Researcher Definitions of the Good in Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:50:y:1999:i:1:p:1-16
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00791.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00791.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00791.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-551, June.
    2. Johnston, Robert J. & Weaver, Thomas F. & Smith, Lynn A. & Swallow, Stephen K., 1995. "Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 56-69, April.
    3. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
    4. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Carter, Marc, 1993. "Prospects For Contingent Valuation: Lessons From The South-East Forests," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 37(2), pages 1-15, August.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. John C. Bergstrom & John R. Stoll & Alan Randall, 1989. "Information Effects in Contingent Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(3), pages 685-691.
    7. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
    8. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    9. Spencer Henson, 1996. "Consumer Willingness To Pay For Reductions In The Risk Of Food Poisoning In The Uk," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 403-420, January.
    10. Karl C. Samples & John A. Dixon & KMarcia M. Gowen, 1986. "Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 306-312.
    11. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    12. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
    13. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lesley, James C., 1996. "Must Contingent Valuation Surveys Cost So Much?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 79-95, July.
    15. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    16. Mitchell, Robert Cameron & Carson, Richard T, 1986. "Property Rights, Protest, and the Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 285-290, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaicharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2008. "Better than their reputation - A case for mail surveys in contingent valuation," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 297/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    2. Jacquelin Burgess & Judy Clark & Carolyn Harrison, 2000. "Culture, Communication, and the Information Problem in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Case Study of a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 18(5), pages 505-524, October.
    3. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    4. Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, W. George & Hunter, Ruth F. & Tully, Mark A. & Kee, Frank, 2015. "Demand response to improved walking infrastructure: A study into the economics of walking and health behaviour change," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 107-116.
    5. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    6. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaincharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2007. "Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 283/2007, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    7. Michael Kaplowitz, 2000. "Identifying ecosystem services using multiple methods: Lessons from the mangrove wetlands of Yucatan, Mexico," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 17(2), pages 169-179, June.
    8. Kaplowitz, Michael D. & Hoehn, John P., 2001. "Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 237-247, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
    5. Gonzalez, Matias & Leon, Carmelo J., 2003. "Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 159-169, June.
    6. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    7. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    8. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    9. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    10. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    11. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    12. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    14. Talwar, Shagorika, 1995. "An evaluation of statistical efficiency and bias trade-off involved with the use of follow-up questioning in the contingent valuation of environmental amenities," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000018160, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Johnston, Robert J. & Börger, Tobias & Hanley, Nick & Meginnis, Keila & Ndebele, Tom & Siyal, Ghamz E. Ali & Beaumont, Nicola & de Vries, Frans P., 2024. "Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    16. Alhassan, Mustapha & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Schoengold, Karina, 2017. "Effects of Information Framing on Smallholder Irrigation Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Groundwater Protection: The Case of Vea Irrigation Scheme in Ghana," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Carmelo León & Francisco Vázquez-Polo & Roberto González, 2003. "Elicitation of Expert Opinion in Benefit Transfer of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 199-210, October.
    18. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    19. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    20. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:50:y:1999:i:1:p:1-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.