1 / 20

Dr. Michael Christie Institute of Rural Sciences University of Wales Aberystwyth

Disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay in a biodiversity conservation context. Dr. Michael Christie Institute of Rural Sciences University of Wales Aberystwyth. Overview. Overview of CV criterion validity tests

valiant
Download Presentation

Dr. Michael Christie Institute of Rural Sciences University of Wales Aberystwyth

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay in a biodiversity conservation context. Dr. Michael Christie Institute of Rural Sciences University of Wales Aberystwyth

  2. Overview • Overview of CV criterion validity tests • Case study: CV study of the value of Red Kite conservation in Wales • Conclusions

  3. Biodiversity valuation • Over the past 20 years or so, there have been numerous studies that have attempted to value biodiversity, for an overview, see • Nunes and van der Bergh (2001); • OECD (2001) • But how reliable are the findings from such studies?

  4. Are WTP values elicited in contingent valuation studies valid ? • Does the study follow NOAA guidelines? • Undertake validity tests • Content validity: Does the survey accurately reflect the good? • Construct validity: Model WTP responses against respondent characteristics. • Criterion validity: Compare hypothetical WTP values with actual WTP values.

  5. Criterion validity tests • Generally, Hypothetical WTP > Actual WTP • Mostly based on laboratory experiments. • Very few address environmental goods. • A truly rigorous criteron test would use: • Field tests • An environmental good

  6. Research Aims: • Using the case study of Red Kite conservation in Wales, the research will aim to : • Test H0: HWTP = AWTP • Since empirical (lab) studies suggest : HWTP > AWTP • We will also aim to identify reasons for any disparity between hypothetical and actual WTP. Therefore, we will compare: • The size of bids between treatments • Stated intentions to pay and actual payments

  7. Red Kites in Wales • The Red Kite used to be common in Wales. • But following 400 year persecution, only 6 Kites left in Wales in 1900. • Recent government-funded effort has re-established Kite populations.

  8. Red Kites in Wales • However, government funding stopped in 1997, and the ‘Welsh Kite Trust’ charity was formed to continue conservation efforts. • Objectives of WKT: • research Kite’s requirements • nest protection • raise public awareness of Kites • provide information about Kites • However, limited funds meant that the plight of the Kite is not now secure!

  9. Experimental Design • Two treatments • Hypothetical WTP: to simulate CV studies • Actual WTP: actual cash donations to WKT • Comparisons between treatments: • Bid levels • positive bids only • positive + zero bids • Stated ‘intentions’ to pay with actual payment

  10. Comparison of hypothetical and actual WTP for Kite conservation

  11. Comparison of hypothetical and actual WTP for Kite conservation • HWTP(pos+zero) > AWTP(pos+zero) • HWTPpos = AWTPpos • This suggests that: • actual bid levels were similar between treatments, • but there were more zero bids in the actual treatment compared to hypothetical treatment.

  12. Stated intention to pay versus actual payment made between treatments

  13. Stated intention to pay versus actual payment made between treatments • HI = AI : No difference in % intending to pay between treatments • HD ≠ AD : Difference in % stating an amount between treatments • HI = HD : No difference in % stating an intention to pay and stating a hypothetical amount. • AI ≠ AD : Difference in % stating an intention to pay and stating an actual amount.

  14. Summary of key results • Hypothetical WTP was 3 times greater that actual WTP: consistent with other criterion validity experiments • However, • The value of bids were consistent between treatments • People over-stated intention to pay in hypothetical treatment.

  15. Why did respondents over-stated intention to pay in hypothetical treatment? • Design issues in this experiment relating to how people could make actual donations? OR • Inherent problem in CV that stimulates more people to express a WTP amount that they would in a real situation? • ‘Warm glow’ effect • ‘Cheap talk’ aims to help make respondents more aware of implications of stating a WTP amount, but may need more emphasis on initially determining whether people would actually pay at all!

  16. What constraints or limitations would you expect to face regarding the use of preference and attitude information for actual policy formulation or implementation? • Reliability: although much effort has been undertaken to improve reliability, criterion validity test consistently show over-estimation. • Policy makers, however, do appear to be embracing the results from valuations (albeit with caution).

  17. Thank you for your interest Christie M(2007) An examination of the disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay for Red Kite conservation using the contingent valuation method. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 55, 159-169.

  18. Tobit model of Hypothetical and Real WTP for Red Kite conservation

More Related