Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Valuing Environmental Goods and Services: An Economic Perspective Read chapter Read first chapter

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

12. Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation

Authors : Richard C. Bishop, Kevin J. Boyle

Published in: A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation

Publisher: Springer Netherlands

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

A central goal of nonmarket valuation studies is to provide accurate value estimates.   We suggest a systematic, comprehensive approach to accuracy assessment using the twin concepts of reliability and validity.  Reliability has to do with variance; validity has to do with bias. If procedures applied in a valuation study are produce erratic results, accuracy suffers even if those procedures are unbiased.  And, even if the procedures in question are reliable, they will be less useful if the procedures applied produce large biases in the estimates.  We adapt the general concepts of reliability and validity to apply to nonmarket valuation studies.  As in many other disciplines, the concept to be measured, the “true values,” is unobservable.  Hence, criteria must be developed to serve as indicators of accuracy. Reliability is typically observed using the estimated standard error of the mean from repeated estimates of value.  Validity is assessed using the concepts of content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity; what we refer to as the “three Cs” of validity.  After fleshing out these concept, we illustrate how they can be applied using two case studies. Contingent valuation serves as an example of stated preference methods. The travel cost method provides a case study of revealed preference methods.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Benefit Transfer
Literature
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R. & Schuman, H. (1993). Natural resource damage assessments under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Federal Register, 58, 4601-4614.
Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Silva, C. L., Brookshire, D. & McKee, M. (2000). Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: With tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. Journal of Environmental Management, 58, 73-90.
Bjornstad, D., Cummings, R. & Osborne, L. (1997). A learning design for reducing hypothetical bias in the contingent valuation method. Environmental and Resource Economics, 10, 207-221.
Boxall, P. C. & Adamowicz, W. L. (2002). Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 421-446.
Boxall, P., Rollins, K. & Englin, J. (2003). Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during a wilderness experience. Resource and Energy Economics, 25, 177-195.
Brown, T. C., Ajzen, I. & Hrubes, D. (2003). Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46, 353-361.
Brown, W. G. & Nawas, F. (1973). Impact of aggregation on the estimation of outdoor recreation demand functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55, 246-249.
Burton, A. C., Carson, K. S., Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G. (2007). Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda. Environmental Resource Economics, 38, 513-525.
Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Carson, R. T. (1997). Contingent valuation surveys and tests of sensitivity to scope. In R. J. Kopp, W. W. Pommerehne, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Determining the value of non-market goods (pp. 127-164). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Carson, R. T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K. M. & Wright, J. L. (1996). Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics, 72, 80-99.
Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E. & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173-210.
Carson, R. T., Groves, T. & List, J. A. (2014). Consequentiality: A theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1, 171-207.
Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., Krosnick, J. A., Mitchell, R. C., Presser, S., Rudd, P. A., Smith, V. K., Conaway, M. & Martin, K. (1997). Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land Economics, 73, 151-163.
Cesario, F. J. & Knetsch, J. L. (1970). Time bias in recreation benefit estimates. Water Resources Research, 6, 700-704.
Champ, P. A. & Brown, T. C. (1997). A comparison of contingent valuation and actual voting behavior. Proceedings, Benefits and Cost Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, 10th interim report, pp. 77-98.
Chu, A., Eisenhower, D., Hay, M., Morganstein, D., Neter, J. & Waksberg, J. (1992). Measuring the recall error in self-reported fishing and hunting activities. Journal of Official Statistics, 8, 19-39.
Cummings, R. G. & Taylor, L. O. (1998). Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys? Land Economics, 74, 203-215.
Cummings, R. G., Elliott, S, Harrison, G. W. & Murphy, J. (1997). Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? The Journal of Political Economy, 105, 609-621.
Desvousges, W., Mathews, K. & Train, K. (2012). Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 84, 121-128.
Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., Dunford R. W., Boyle, K. J., Hudson, S. P. & Wilson, K. N. (1992). Measuring nonuse damages using contingent valuation: An experimental evaluation of accuracy. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Diamond, P. (1996). Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 337-347.
Diamond, P. A. & Hausman, J. A. (1993.) On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values. In J. A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment (pp. 3-38). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Diamond, P. A. & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (4), 45-64.
Gems, B., Ghosh, D. & Hitlin, R. (1982). A recall experiment: Impact of time on recall of recreational fishing trips. Proceedings, Section on Survey Research Methods, 7, 168-173.
Grijalva, T. C., Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Jakus, P. M. & Shaw, W. D. (2002). Valuing the loss of rock climbing access in wilderness areas: A national-level, random-utility model. Land Economics, 78, 103-120.
Haab, T. C., Interis, M. G., Petrolia, D. R. & Whitehead, J. C. (2013). From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s ‘dubious to hopeless’ critique of contingent valuation. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35, 593-612.
Haener, M. K., Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L. & Kuhnke, D. H. (2004). Aggregation bias in recreation site choice models: Resolving the resolution problem. Land Economics, 80, 561-574.
Hanley, N. D. (1989). Valuing rural recreation benefits: An empirical comparison of two approaches. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40, 361-374.
Hausman, J. A. (Ed.). (1993). Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Hausman, J. A. (2012). Contingent valuation: From dubious to hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26 (4), 43-56.
Heberlein, T. A., Wilson, M. A., Bishop, R. C. & Schaeffer. N. C. (2005). Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50, 1-22.
Hindsley, P., Landry, C. E. & Gentner, B. (2011). Addressing onsite sampling in recreation site choice models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62, 95-110.
Hynes, S., Hanley, N. & Garvey, E. (2007). Up the proverbial creek without a paddle: Accounting for variable participant skill levels in recreational demand modelling. Environmental and Resource Economics, 36, 413-426.
Jacobsen, J. B. & Hanley, N. (2009). Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environmental and Resource Economics, 43, 137-160.
Johnston, R. J. (2006). Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52, 469-481.
Jones-Lee, M., Hammerton, M. & Phillips, P. R. (1985). The value of safety: Results of a national survey. Economic Journal, 95, 49-72.
Kahneman, D. & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57-70.
Kealy, M. J., Dovidio, J. F. & Rockel, M. L. (1988). Accuracy in valuation is a matter of degree. Land Economics, 64, 158-171.
Kealy, M. J., Montgomery, M. & Dovidio, J. F. (1990). Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: Does the nature of the good matter? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 19, 244-263.
Kinnell, J. C., Bingham, M. F., Mohamed, A. F., Desvousges, W. H., Kiler, T. B., Hastings, E. K. & Kuhns, K. T. (2006). Estimating site choice decisions for urban recreators. Land Economics, 82, 257-272.
Kochi, I., Hubbell, B. & Kramer, R. (2006). An empirical Bayes approach to combining and comparing estimates of the value of a statistical life for environmental policy analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 385-406.
Landry, C. E. & List, J. A. (2007). Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: Evidence from the field. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 420-429.
Landry, C. E. & Liu, H. (2009). A semi-parametric estimator for revealed and stated preference data—An application to recreational beach visitation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 57, 205-218.
List, J. A. & Gallet, C. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241-254.
Little, J. & Berrens, R. (2004). Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin, 3 (6), 1-13.
Loehman, E. & De, V. H. (1982). Application of stochastic modeling to the study of public goods. Review of Economics and Statistics, 64, 474-480.
Loomis, J. B. (1989). Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: A comparison of general population and visitor responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, 76-84.
Loomis, J. B. (1990). Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 18, 78-85.
Lupi, F., Hoehn, J. P. & Christie, G. C. (2003). Using an economic model of recreational fishing to evaluate the benefits of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) control on the St. Marys River. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 29 (Supplement 1), 742-754.
Massey, D. M., Newbold, S. C. & Gentner, B. (2006). Valuing water quality changes using a bioeconomic model of a coastal recreational fishery. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52 (1), 482-500.
Mazurkiewicz, S. M., Boyle, K. J., Teisl, M. F., Morris, K. I. & Clark, A. G. (1996). Recall bias and reliability of survey data: Moose hunting in Maine. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24, 140-148.
McCollum, D. W. (1986). The travel cost method: Time, specification, and validity. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Madison.
McConnell, K. E., Strand, I. E. & Valdés, S. (1998). Testing temporal reliability and carry-over effect: The role of correlated responses in test-retest reliability studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 12, 357-374.
McFadden, D. (1994). Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76, 689-708.
Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Moeltner, K. & Englin, J. (2004). Choice behavior under time-variant quality: State dependence versus ‘play-it-by-ear’ in selecting ski resorts. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 22, 214-224.
Moore, J. C., Stinson, L. L. & Welniak, E. J. (2000). Income measurement error in surveys: A review. Journal of Official Statistics, 16, 331-362.
Murdock, J. (2006). Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51, 1-25.
Murphy, J. J., Allen, P. G., Stevens, T. H. & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 313-325.
Reiling, S. D., Boyle, K. J., Cheng, H. & Philips, M. L. (1989). Contingent valuation of a public program to control black flies. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 18, 126-134.
Reiling, S. D., Boyle, K. J., Phillips, M. L. & Anderson, M. W. (1990). Temporal reliability of contingent values. Land Economics, 66, 128-134.
Rosenberger, R. S. & Loomis, J. B. (2000). Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research, 36, 1097-1107.
Scarpa, R., Thiene, M. & Train, K. (2008). Utility in willingness to pay space: A tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90, 994-1010.
Schkade, D. A. &. Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88-109.
Schläpfer, F. (2006). Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 57, 415-429.
Scott, A. (1965). The valuation of game resources: Some theoretical aspects. Canadian Fisheries Report, 4, 27-47.
Shrestha, R. K. & Loomis, J. B. (2003). Meta-analytic benefit transfer of outdoor recreation economic values: Testing out-of-sample convergent validity. Environmental and Resource Economics, 25, 79-100.
Smith, V. K. & Kaoru, Y. (1990a). Signals or noise? Explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, 419-433.
Smith, V. K. & Kaoru, Y. (1990b). What have we learned since Hotelling’s letter? Economic Letters, 32, 267-272.
Stevens, J. B. (1969). Effects of nonprice variables upon participation in water-oriented outdoor recreation: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51, 192-193.
Stumborg, B. E., Baerenklau, K. A. & Bishop, R. C. (2001). Nonpoint source pollution and present values: A contingent valuation study of Lake Mendota. Review of Agricultural Economics, 23, 120-132.
Tarrant, M. A., Manfredo, M. J., Braley, P. B. & Hess, R. (1993). Effects of recall bias and nonresponse bias on self-report estimates and angling participation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 13, 217-222.
Taylor, L. O. (1998). Incentive compatible referenda and the valuation of environmental goods. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 27, 132-139.
Taylor, L. O., McKee, M., Laury, S. K. & Cummings, R. G. (2001). Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Economics Letters, 71, 61-65.
Teisl, M. F., Boyle, K. J., McCollum, D. W. & Reiling, S. D. (1995). Test-retest reliability of contingent valuation with independent sample pretest and posttest control groups. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77, 613-619.
Timmins, C. & Murdock, J. (2007). A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models. Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 53, 230-249.
Trice, A. H. & Wood, S. E. (1958) Measurement of recreation benefits. Land Economics, 34, 195-207.
Vossler, C. A. & Kerkvliet, J. (2003). A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 631-649.
Vossler, C. A., Kerkvliet, J., Polasky, S. & Gainutdinova, O. (2003). Externally validating contingent valuation: An open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51, 261-277.
Zeller, R. A. & Carmines, E. G. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences: The link between theory and data. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Metadata
Title
Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation
Authors
Richard C. Bishop
Kevin J. Boyle
Copyright Year
2017
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Book
A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation

Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7103-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-007-7104-8

Copyright Year: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_12