Journal article
David J. Chapman, R. Bishop, W. Hanemann, B. Kanninen, J. Krosnick, E. Morey, R. Tourangeau
Ecological Economics, 2016
Ecological Economics, 2016
Semantic Scholar
DOI
Cite
Cite
APA
Click to copy
Chapman, D. J., Bishop, R., Hanemann, W., Kanninen, B., Krosnick, J., Morey, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2016). On the adequacy of scope test results: Comments on Desvousges, Mathews, and Train. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.022
Chicago/Turabian
Click to copy
Chapman, David J., R. Bishop, W. Hanemann, B. Kanninen, J. Krosnick, E. Morey, and R. Tourangeau. “On the Adequacy of Scope Test Results: Comments on Desvousges, Mathews, and Train.” Ecological Economics (2016).
MLA
Click to copy
Chapman, David J., et al. “On the Adequacy of Scope Test Results: Comments on Desvousges, Mathews, and Train.” Ecological Economics, 2016, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.022.
BibTeX Click to copy
@article{david2016a,
title = {On the adequacy of scope test results: Comments on Desvousges, Mathews, and Train},
year = {2016},
journal = {Ecological Economics},
doi = {10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.022},
author = {Chapman, David J. and Bishop, R. and Hanemann, W. and Kanninen, B. and Krosnick, J. and Morey, E. and Tourangeau, R.}
}
Introduction: In a 2012 article, Desvousges, Mathews, and Train (hereafter DMT) quote the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation as stating, “…if a CV survey suffered from any of the following maladies, we would judge its findings ‘unreliable’.” One of the maladies on their list was “Inadequate responsiveness to the scope of the environmental insult” (Arrow et al., 1993, p. 4609, emphasis added). DMT propose criteria for judging whether scope differences (i.e., differences in values from scope tests) are adequate. They show that nearly all past CV studies do not provide sufficient data to apply their criteria but argue that Chapman et al.(2009) is an exception. They apply their criteria to argue that our study did not demonstrate adequate responsiveness to scope and should therefore be judged to be “unreliable.”
After presenting relevant background about our study, we recap DMT's arguments and show how misinterpretations of our scenarios led them to incorrect conclusions. The bottom line is that our study should be included among the vast majority of studies to which their criteria for adequacy cannot be applied.
After presenting relevant background about our study, we recap DMT's arguments and show how misinterpretations of our scenarios led them to incorrect conclusions. The bottom line is that our study should be included among the vast majority of studies to which their criteria for adequacy cannot be applied.
