IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ash/wpaper/81.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Scope insensitivity - behavioral elucidation or mental accounting?

Author

Listed:
  • Kavita Sardana

    (TERI School of Advanced Studies)

  • Srijita Ghosh

    (Ashoka University)

Abstract

The scope sensitivity test is used to validate value estimates of non-market environmental goods and services derived from the contingent valuation method. The absence of economic scope points to the invalid value estimates. Recent studies have attributed scope insensitivity to affective, cognitive, and behavioral factors. In this study, we extend the behavioral insights in explaining scope insensitivity by incorporating insights from the theory of mental accounting. Our empirical results indicate that if subjects consider the environmental good as part of their recreational budget within a mental accounting framework, we can explain the scope insensitivity with otherwise standard preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Kavita Sardana & Srijita Ghosh, 2022. "Scope insensitivity - behavioral elucidation or mental accounting?," Working Papers 81, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ash:wpaper:81
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dp.ashoka.edu.in/ash/wpaper/paper81_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B. Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 202-227, Summer.
    2. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    3. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    4. Desvousges, William H. & Gable, Alicia R. & Dunford, Richard W. & Hudson, Sara P., 1993. "Contingent Valuation: The Wrong Tool to Measure Passive-Use Losses," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-3.
    5. Hunt Allcott & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2015. "Evaluating Behaviorally Motivated Policy: Experimental Evidence from the Lightbulb Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(8), pages 2501-2538, August.
    6. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate, 2005. "Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, July.
    7. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    8. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    9. Dmitry Taubinsky & Alex Rees-Jones, 2018. "Attention Variation and Welfare: Theory and Evidence from a Tax Salience Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(4), pages 2462-2496.
    10. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    11. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    12. Samiran Banerjee & James Murphy, 2005. "The scope test revisited," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(10), pages 613-617.
    13. Egan, Kevin J. & Corrigan, Jay R. & Dwyer, Daryl F., 2015. "Three reasons to use annual payments in contingent valuation surveys: Convergent validity, discount rates, and mental accounting," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 123-136.
    14. Sardana, Kavita, 2019. "Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Traditional Agro-forest Ecosystems Providing Biodiversity: Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 362-372.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Patrizia Riganti, 2022. "Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation Applications to Cultural Capital: Does the Nature of the Goods Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    3. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    4. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    5. Ghanem, Samar & Ferrini, Silvia & Di Maria, Corrado, 2023. "Air pollution and willingness to pay for health risk reductions in Egypt: A contingent valuation survey of Greater Cairo and Alexandria households," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    6. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    7. Persson, Petra, 2018. "Attention manipulation and information overload," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 78-106, May.
    8. Henrik Andersson & Mikael Svensson, 2008. "Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 481-495, April.
    9. Raj Chetty, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 1-33, May.
    10. Zarko Kalamov, 2021. "Evaluating Marginal Internalities: A New Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 9476, CESifo.
    11. Gilbert, Ben & Graff Zivin, Joshua S., 2020. "Dynamic corrective taxes with time-varying salience," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    12. Olafsson, Arna & Gathergood, John, 2020. "The Co-holding Puzzle: New Evidence from Transaction-Level Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 14799, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Thomas Dietz & Paul C. Stern & Amy Dan, 2009. "How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 329-347.
    14. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    15. Hammitt, James K. & Herrera-Araujo, Daniel, 2018. "Peeling back the onion: Using latent class analysis to uncover heterogeneous responses to stated preference surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 165-189.
    16. Lanz, Bruno & Wurlod, Jules-Daniel & Panzone, Luca & Swanson, Timothy, 2018. "The behavioral effect of Pigovian regulation: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 190-205.
    17. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    18. Castillo, Marco & Petrie, Ragan & Wardell, Clarence, 2023. "Barriers to charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    19. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2018. "How are Scope and Adding up Relevant for Benefits Transfer?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 483-502, March.
    20. Carrasco-Garcés, Moisés & Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D. & Diaz Pincheira, Francisco & Barrientos, Manuel, 2021. "Estimating the implicit discount rate for new technology adoption of wood-burning stoves," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Scope insensitivity;

    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:ash:wpaper:81. 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: Ashoka University (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ashoka.edu.in .

    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.