Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Sequencing and the Adding-up Property in Contingent Valuation of Endangered Species: Are Contingent Non-Use Values Economic Values?

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents tests of the theoretical validity of the contingent valuation (CV) method. The validity of CV is especially a concern when involving environmental goods with a predominant non-use value. One test of theoretical validity is the adding-up property that implies that a specific good should be equally valued irrespectively of it is being valued directly or built-up sequentially. In this CV study four independent sub-samples stated willingness to pay for the same composite good, or package, using different sequences. One sub-sample valued the composite good directly, while two sub-samples faced built-up sequences valuing first subsets of this composite good. A fourth sub-sample valued the composite good from a dividing-out approach, facing first the valuation of a larger multi-package. Theoretically expected sequencing effects were observed; the subset goods obtained higher values earlier in a sequence, and the dividing-out approach decreased the stated value for the composite good. Most importantly, these CV data did pass the tests of the adding-up property.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • K. J. Arrow R. Solow E. Learner P. Portney R. Radner H Schuman (1993) ArticleTitle‘Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation’ Federal Register 58 4601–4614

    Google Scholar 

  • I. J. Bateman K. G. Willis (Eds) (1999) Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU and Developing Countries Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • I. J. Bateman M. Cole P. Cooper S. Georgiou D. Hadley G.L. Poe (2004) ArticleTitle‘On Visible Choice Sets and Scope Sensitivity’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47 IssueID1 71–93

    Google Scholar 

  • D. J. Bjornstad J. R. Kahn (1996) The Contingent Valuation of’Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • T. C. Brown P. A. Champ R. C. Bishop D. W. McCollum (1996) ArticleTitle‘Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?’ Land Economics 72 IssueID2 152–166

    Google Scholar 

  • R.T. Carson L. Wilks D. Imber (1994) ArticleTitle‘Valuing the Preservation of Australia’s Kakadu Conservation Zone’ Oxford Economic Papers 46 727–749

    Google Scholar 

  • R. T. Carson R. C. Mitchell (1995) ArticleTitle‘Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 IssueID2 155–173

    Google Scholar 

  • R. T. Carson N. E. Flores W. M. Hanemann (1998) ArticleTitle‘Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 314–323

    Google Scholar 

  • R. T. Carson N. E. Flores N. F. Meade (2001) ArticleTitle‘Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence’ Environmental and Resource Economics 19 173–210

    Google Scholar 

  • R. G. Cummings G. W. Harrison (1994) ArticleTitle‘Was the Ohio Court Well Informed in its Assessment of the Accuracy of the Contingent Valuation Method?’ Natural Resource Journal 34 1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • R. G. Cummings G. W. Harrison (1995) ArticleTitle‘The Measurement and Decomposition of Non-use Values: A Critical Review’ Environmental and Resource Economics 5 225–247

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Diamond (1996) ArticleTitle‘Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 337–347

    Google Scholar 

  • P. A. Diamond J. A. Hausman (1994) ArticleTitle‘Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 IssueID4 45–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores, N. E. (1999), ‘The Importance of Agenda and Willingness to Pay’, Working Paper No. 99–30, Center for Economic Analysis, Department of Economics, University of Colorado at Boulder.

  • C. Green S. Tunstall (1999) ‘A Psychological Perspective’ I. J. Bateman K. G. Willis (Eds) Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU and Developing Countries Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • G. W. Harrison (1992) ArticleTitle‘Valuing Public Goods with the Contingent Valuation Method: A Critique of Kahneman and Knetsch’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23 248–257

    Google Scholar 

  • J. A. Hausman (1993) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment Elsevier Science Publishers Amsterdam 503

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Kahneman J. L. Knetsch (1992) ArticleTitle‘Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 57–70

    Google Scholar 

  • R.C. Mitchell R.T. Carson (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method Resources for the Future Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • P. A. L. D. Nunes E. Schokkaert (2003) ArticleTitle‘Identifying the Warm Glow Effect in Contingent Valuation’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45 231–245

    Google Scholar 

  • J. W. Payne D. A. Schkade W.H. Desvousges C. Aultman (2000) ArticleTitle‘Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs’ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21 IssueID1 95–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A. and J. P. Hoehn (1993), ‘Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation’, Staff Paper No. 93-06 (Draft), Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.

  • A. Randall J. P. Hoehn (1996) ArticleTitle‘Embedding in Market Demand Systems’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 369–380

    Google Scholar 

  • R. C. Ready J. C. Buzby D. Hu (1996) ArticleTitle‘Differences Between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Valuation Estimates’ Land Economics 72 IssueID3 397–411

    Google Scholar 

  • R. C. Ready S. Navrud W. R. Dubourg (2001) ArticleTitle‘How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?’ Land Economics 77 315–326

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Schulze G. McClelland D. Waldman J. Lazo (1996) ‘Sources of Bias in Contingent Valuation’ J. Bjornstad J. R. Kahn (Eds) The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs Edward Elgar Brookfield, Cheltenham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • V. K. Smith (1994) ArticleTitle‘Lightning Rods, Dart Boards and Contingent Valuation’ Natural Resources Journal 34 IssueID1 121–152

    Google Scholar 

  • R. K. Turner (1999) ‘The Place of Economic Values in Environmental Valuation’ I. J. Bateman K. G. Willis (Eds) Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU and Developing Countries Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • H. R. Varian (1992) Microeconomic Analysis Norton & Company New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Veisten, K., H. F. Hoen, S. Navrud and J. Strand (2003), ‘Scope Insensitivity in Contingent Valuation of Complex Environmental Amenities’, in K. Veisten, “Valuation of Non-market Forest Products – Methodological and Empirical Studies’’, Ph.D. Thesis (Dr. Scient.), Agricultural University of Norway.

  • M. Weber F. Eisenfuhr D. Winterfeldt ParticleVon (1988) ArticleTitle‘The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement’ Management Science 34 31–445

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Knut Veisten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Veisten, K., Hoen, H.F. & Strand, J. Sequencing and the Adding-up Property in Contingent Valuation of Endangered Species: Are Contingent Non-Use Values Economic Values?. Environ Resource Econ 29, 419–433 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-9458-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-9458-1

Keywords

Navigation