Abstract
This paper provides further empirical evidence of the validity of environmental benefits transfer based on CV studies by expanding the analysis to include control factors which have not been accounted for in previous studies. These factors refer to differences in respondent attitudes. Traditional population characteristics were taken into account, but these variables do not explain why respondents from the same socio-economic group may still hold different beliefs, norms or values and hence have different attitudes and consequently state different WTP amounts. The test results are mixed. The function transfer approach is valid in one case, but is rejected in the 3 other cases investigated in this paper. We provide further evidence that in the case of statistically valid benefits transfer, the function approach results in a more robust benefits transfer than the unit value approach. We also show that the equality of coefficient estimates is a necessary, but insufficient condition for valid benefit function transfer and discuss the implications for previous and future validity testing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schuman (1993), Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, January 15, Vol. 58no. 10: 4601–4644.
Bergland, O., K. Magnussen and S. Navrud (1995), Benefit Transfer: Testing for Accuracy and Reliability. Discussion Paper, #D-03/1995, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway.
Boyle, K. J. and J. C. Bergstrom (1992), ‘Benefit Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism, and Idealism’, Water Resources Research 28(3), 675–683.
Brouwer, R. (1995), The Measurement of the Non-Marketable Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of Dutch Peat Meadow Land. Wageningen Economic Paper, 1995–1, Wageningen Agricultural University.
Brouwer, R., I. H. Langford, I. J. Bateman, T. C. Crowards and R. K. Turner (1997), A Meta-Analysis of Wetland Contingent Valuation Studies. GEC Working Paper 97–20, CSERGE, University of East Anglia and University College London.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge. R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Nacem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt (1997), ‘The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital’, Nature 387, 253–260.
Cramer, J. S. (1986), Econometric Applications of Maximum Likelihood Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Desvousges, W. H., M. C. Naughton and G. R. Parsons (1992), ‘Benefit Transfer: Conceptual Problems in Estimating Water Quality Benefits Using Existing Studies’, Water Resources Research 28(3), 675–683.
Diamond, P. A., J. A. Hausman, G. Leonard and M. A. Denning (1993), ‘Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence’, in J. A. Hausman, ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Contributions to Economic Analysis 220. Amsterdam: North Holland.
DilIman, D. A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Downing, M. and T. Ozuna Jr (1996), ‘Testing the Reliability of the Benefit Function Transfer Approach’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 316–322.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Greene, W. H. (1990), Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Halstead, J.M., B. E. Lindsay and C. M. Brown (1991), ‘Use of the Tobit Model in Contingent Valuation: Experimental Evidence from the Pemigewaset Wilderness Area’, Journal of Environmental Management 33, 79–89.
Hoevenagel, R. (1994), The Contingent Valuation Method: Scope and Validity. PhD-thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Kirchhoff, S., B. G. Colby and J. T. LaFrance (1997), ‘Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 75–93.
Loomis, J. B. (1992), ‘The Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefit Transfer: Benefit Function Transfer’, Water Resources Research 28(3), 701–705.
Loomis, J. B., B. Roach, F. Ward, and R. Ready (1995), Testing Transferability of Recreation Demand Models Across Regions: A Study of Corps of Engineer Reservoirs’, Water Resources Research 31(3), 721–730.
Maddala, G. S. (1983), Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Doherty, R. K. (1996), Contingent Valuation and Benefit Transfer: An Assessment in a Local Planning Context. Working Papers in Economics, No. 19, Faculty of Economics and Social Science, University of the West of England, Bristol.
Parsons, G. R. and M. J. Kealy (1994), ‘Benefits Transfer in a Random Utility Model of Recreation’, Water Resources Research 30(8), 2477–2484.
Pearce, D. W., D. Whittington and S. Georgiou (1994), Project and Policy Appraisal: Integrating Economics and Environment. Paris: OECD.
Spaninks, F. A. (1993), Een Schatting van de Sociale Baten van Beheersovereenkomsten met behulp van de Contingent Valuation Methode. MSc-thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Policy, Wageningen Agricultural University.
Spaninks, F. A. and R. Hoevenagel (1995), Temporal Embedding in Contingent Valuation. Paper presented at the 6th annual meeting of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), Umeå, Sweden, June 17–20.
Terwan, P. (1988), Landbouw en Natuur in Veenweidegebieden, Perspectieven voor Verweving. Centrum voor Landbouw en Milieu en Landelijk Overleg van Boerenwerkgroepen in Relatienotagebieden. Utrecht: Drukkerij Elinkwijk B.V.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brouwer, R., Spaninks, F.A. The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing. Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 95–117 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008377604893
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008377604893