[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apeclt/v12y2005i10p613-617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The scope test revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Samiran Banerjee
  • James Murphy
Abstract
Sensitivity to scope has become an acid test for the validity of responses to non-market valuation scenarios. The theoretical relationship between whether a subject's responses exhibit sensitivity to scope and whether consistent preferences underlie those responses is examined. It is found that sensitivity to scope is neither necessary nor sufficient for preference consistency. Moreover, while continuous, strongly monotonic and total preferences yield scope, the converse fails to hold. The results suggest caution in scope's application as a survey validation tool.

Suggested Citation

  • Samiran Banerjee & James Murphy, 2005. "The scope test revisited," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(10), pages 613-617.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:12:y:2005:i:10:p:613-617
    DOI: 10.1080/13504850500166253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/13504850500166253&magic=repec&7C&7C8674ECAB8BB840C6AD35DC6213A474B5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13504850500166253?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers 10503, Resources for the Future.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Boyle Kevin J. & Desvousges William H. & Johnson F. Reed & Dunford Richard W. & Hudson Sara P., 1994. "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 64-83, July.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 1993. "The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1263-1267.
    5. 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.
    6. James Andreoni, 2001. "Giving According to GARP," Theory workshop papers 339, UCLA Department of Economics.
    7. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Kavita Sardana & Srijita Ghosh, 2022. "Scope insensitivity - behavioral elucidation or mental accounting?," Working Papers 81, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    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. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    5. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    6. Morse-Jones, Sian & Bateman, Ian J. & Kontoleon, Andreas & Ferrini, Silvia & Burgess, Neil D. & Turner, R. Kerry, 2012. "Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 9-18.
    7. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Ian J. Bateman & Michael P. Cameron & Antreas Tsoumas, 2006. "Investigating the Characteristics of Stated Preferences for Reducing the Impacts of Air Pollution: A Contingent Valuation Experiment," Working Papers in Economics 06/08, University of Waikato.
    3. 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.
    4. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Andrea Leiter & Gerald Pruckner, 2009. "Proportionality of Willingness to Pay to Small Changes in Risk: The Impact of Attitudinal Factors in Scope Tests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 169-186, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Langenberger, Gerhard & Pelz, Sonna, 2014. "Chinese urbanites and the preservation of rare species in remote parts of the country: the example of eaglewood," MPRA Paper 62897, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 11 Dec 2014.
    9. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    10. Moisés Carrasco Garcés & Felipe Vasquez-Lavin & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & José Luis Bustamante Oporto & Manuel Barrientos & Arcadio A. Cerda, 2021. "Embedding effect and the consequences of advanced disclosure: evidence from the valuation of cultural goods," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 1039-1062, August.
    11. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How to ‘Sell’ an Environmental Good: Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects," Working Papers 2008-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    13. Inderst, Roman & Opp, Markus, 2022. "Socially optimal sustainability standards with non-consequentialist ("warm glow") investors," SAFE Working Paper Series 346, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    14. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Antonio Morales, 2005. "Moral Framing in Dictator Games by Short Sentences," ThE Papers 05/06, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    15. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    16. James Andreoni, 2006. "Giving Gifts to Groups: How Congestible is Altruism?," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000166, UCLA Department of Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2008. "On The Social Dimension Of Time And Risk Preferences: An Experimental Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(2), pages 261-272, April.
    19. Cooper, David J. & Van Huyck, John B., 2003. "Evidence on the equivalence of the strategic and extensive form representation of games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 290-308, June.
    20. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.

    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:taf:apeclt:v:12:y:2005:i:10:p:613-617. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20 .

    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.