Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Comment

Riccardo Scarpa

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2000, vol. 51, issue 1, 122-128

Abstract: Following Boxall et al. (1996), Hanley et al. (1998) compare welfare measures derived from contingent valuation (CV) to those derived from choice experiment (CE). Using the same Gumbel distribution assumption of the unobserved component of indirect utility, they estimate welfare measures that they expect to be the same. However, they fail to acknowledge that the indirect utility specifications underlying the two sets of estimates differ. Hence, they do not compare like with like and the difference in welfare estimates cannot be definitely attributed to the difference in the two stated preference methods employed. This comment argues that their econometric analysis is flawed and does not support many of their concluding remarks. Further, disagreement is expressed with their alleged findings on the potential performance of CV in benefit transfer studies.

Date: 2000
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01213.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jageco:v:51:y:2000:i:1:p:122-128

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0021-857X

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Agricultural Economics is currently edited by David Harvey

More articles in Journal of Agricultural Economics from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().