Exploring divergence between respondent and researcher definitions of the good in contingent valuation studies

In Contingent Valuation studies, researchers often base their definition of the environmental good on scientific/expert consensus. However, respondents may not hold this same commodity definition prior to the transaction. This raises questions as to the potential for staging a satisfactory transaction, based on Fischoff and Furby's (1988) criteria. Some unresolved issues regarding the provision of information to respondents to facilitate such a transaction are highlighted. In this paper, we apply content analysis to focus group discussions and develop a set of rules which take account of the non-independence of group data to explore whether researcher and respondents' prior definitions are in any way similar. We use the results to guide information provision in a subsequent questionnaire.

Content Validity in Landscape Valuation: A transdisciplinary approach to valuing the landscape of the peninsula of Sorrento, Italy.

This paper addresses the representation of landscape complexity in stated preferences research. It integrates landscape ecology and landscape economics and conducts the landscape analysis in a three-dimensional space to provide ecologically meaningful quantitative landscape indicators that are used as variables for the monetary valuation of landscape in a stated preferences study. Expected heterogeneity in taste intensity across respondents is addressed with a mixed logit model in Willingness to Pay space. The results suggest that the integration of landscape ecology metrics in a stated preferences model provides useful insights for valuing landscape and landscape changes

The complexity of biodiversity: A biological perspective on economic valuation

To value something, you first have to know what it is. Bartkowski et al. (2015) reveal a critical weakness: that biodiversity has rarely, if ever, been defined in economic valuations of putative biodiversity. Here we argue that a precise definition is available and could help focus valuation studies, but that in using this scientific definition (a three-dimensional measure of total difference), valuation by stated-preference methods becomes, at best, very difficult.We reclassify the valuation studies reviewed by Bartkowski et al. (2015) to better reflect the biological definition of biodiversity and its potential indirect use value as the support for provisioning and regulating services. Our analysis shows that almost all of the studies reviewed by Bartkowski et al. (2015) were not about biodiversity, but rather were about the 'vague notion' of naturalness, or sometimes a specific biological component of diversity. Alternative economic methods should be found to value biodiversity as it is defined in natural science. We suggest options based on a production function analogy or cost-based methods. Particularly the first of these provides a strong link between economic theory and ecological research and is empirically practical. Since applied science emphasizes a scientific definition of biodiversity in the design and justification of conservation plans, the need for economic valuation of this quantitative meaning of biodiversity is considerable and as yet unfulfilled.