Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:10:33.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Supervisors Affect the Valuation of Public Goods?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Dina Franceschi  and
William F. Vásquez
Dina Franceschi
Affiliation:
Department of Economics at Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut
William F. Vásquez
Affiliation:
Department of Economics at Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Systematic supervision procedures have been proposed to improve contingent valuation surveying, particularly in developing countries. Surprisingly, the CV literature does not say much about the potential effects of supervision even though there is evidence of interviewer effects and social desirability issues that can bias results. This paper investigates the effects of interview supervision on the valuation of public services, using split-sample treatments to include a test of scope of a nested good and to assess the effect of interview supervision on reported WTP. Results suggest that supervisors can be used to improve quality with no effect on WTP estimates.

Keywords

contingent valuationdrinking waterNicaraguasocial desirabilitysupervision effectswillingness to pay
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , August 2011 , pp. 184 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Learner, E.E., and Radner, R. 1993. Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register. 58(10): 4601–4614.Google Scholar
Bateman, I., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, W.M., Hanley, N., and Hett, T. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preferences: A Manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Bateman, I.J., and Mawby, J. 2004. “First Impressions Count: Interviewer Appearance and Information Effects in Stated Preference Studies.” Ecological Economics 49(1): 47–55.Google Scholar
Berrens, R., Bohara, A., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C., and Weimer, D. 2004. “Information and Effort in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Application to Global Climate Change using National Internet Samples.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47(2): 331–363.Google Scholar
Berrens, R., Jenkins-Smith, H., Bohara, A., and Silva, C. 2002. “Further Investigations of Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Fair Share, Time of Contribution, and Respondent Uncertainty.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(1): 144–168.Google Scholar
Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G., Johannesson, M., Horn, N., and Freeman, P. 2008. “Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Economic Journal 118(525): 114–137.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A. 1988. “A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-Market Goods using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15(3): 355–379.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T., and Groves, T. 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37(1): 181–210.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T., and Mitchell, R. 1995. “Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(2): 155–173.Google Scholar
Casey, J.F., Kahn, J.R., and Rivas, A. 2006. “Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Service in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.” Ecological Economics 58(2): 365–372.Google Scholar
Champ, P.A., Moore, R., and Bishop, R.C. 2009. “A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38(2): 166–180.Google Scholar
Cotter, P.R., Cohen, J., and Coulter, P.B. 1982. “Race-of-Interviewer Effects in Telephone Interviews.” Public Opinion Quarterly 46(2): 278–284.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resources Values: Theory and Methods, second ed. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.Google Scholar
Groothuis, P.A., Groothuis, J.D., and Whitehead, J.C. 2007. “The Willingness to Pay to Remove Billboards and Improve Scenic Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Management 85(4): 1094–1100.Google Scholar
Groves, R., and Fultz, N. 1985. “Gender Effects among Telephone Interviewers in a Survey of Economic Attitudes.” Sociological Methods & Research 14(1): 31–52.Google Scholar
Guevara Jerez, F. 2007. “A Thirsty Country with Lots of Water.” Revista Envío 302, Nicaragua.Google Scholar
Gunatilake, H., Yang, J., Pattanayak, S., and Choe, K.A. 2007. “Good Practices for Estimating Reliable Willingness-to-Pay Values in the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector.” Technical Note Series No. 23. Economics and Research Department, Asian Development Bank, Philippines.Google Scholar
Herriges, J., Kling, C., Liu, C., and Tobias, J. 2010. “What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59(1): 67–81.Google Scholar
INEC (National Institute of Statistics and Census), 2006a. VIII Censo de Población y IV de Vivienda: Población. Vol. IV. Gobierno de Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua.Google Scholar
INEC (National Institute of Statistics and Census), 2006b. VIII Censo de Población y IV de Vivienda: Vivienda. Vol. II. Gobierno de Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A.L. 1986. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715–719.Google Scholar
Krysan, M., and Couper, M.P. 2003. “Race in the Live and the Virtual Interview: Racial Deference, Social Desirability, and Activation Effects in Attitude Surveys.” Social Psychology Quarterly 66(4): 364–383.Google Scholar
Laughland, A.S., Musser, W.N., and Musser, L.M. 1994. “An Experiment in Contingent Valuation and Social Desirability.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 23(1): 29–36.Google Scholar
Legget, C.G., Kleckner, N.S., Boyle, K.J., Duffield, J.W., and Mitchell, R.C. 2003. “Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered through In-Person Interviews.” Land Economics 79(4): 561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C., Berrens, R., and Herron, K. 2009. “Public Support for Reducing U.S. Reliance on Fossil Fuels: Investigating Household Willingness to Pay for Energy Research and Development.” Ecological Economics 68(3): 731–742.Google Scholar
List, J., Berrens, R., Bohara, A., and Kerkvliet, J. 2004. “Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences.” American Economic Review 94(3): 741–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, J., and Berrens, R. 2004. “Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis.” Economics Bulletin 3(6): 1–13.Google Scholar
Loureiro, M.L., and Lotade, J. 2005. “Interviewer Effect on the Valuation of Goods with Ethical and Environmental Attributes.” Environmental and Resource Economics 30(1): 49–72.Google Scholar
Marta-Pedroso, C., Freitas, H., and Domingos, T., 2007. “Testing for the Survey Mode Effect on Contingent Valuation Data Quality: A Case Study of Web-Based versus In-person Interviews.” Ecological Economics 62(3-4): 388–398.Google Scholar
MINED (Ministry of Education). 2008a. Censo Escolar 2007. Gobierno de Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua.Google Scholar
MINED (Ministry of Education). 2008b. Indice del Estado Educativo Municipal 2007. Gobierno de Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua.Google Scholar
MINSA (Ministry of Health). 2008. Reporte de Motivos de Consulta 2008. Ministry of Health, León, Nicaragua.Google Scholar
Morrison, M., and Brown, T.C. 2009. “Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies.” Environmental and Resource Economics 44(3): 307–326.Google Scholar
Murphy, J., Allen, G., Stevens, T., and Weatherhead, D. 2005. “A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 30(3): 313–325.Google Scholar
OECD. 2003. Social Issues in the Provision and Pricing of Water Services. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publishing.Google Scholar
PAHO and ENACAL. 2004. Análisis Sectorial de Agua Potable y Saneamiento de Nicaragua. Panamerican Health Organization and Empresa Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Nicaragua.Google Scholar
Poe, G.L., Clark, J.E., Rondeau, D., and Schulze, W.D. 2002. “Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity of Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23(1): 105–131.Google Scholar
Poe, G.L., Giraud, K.L., and Loomis, J.B. 2005. “Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 353–366.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, F., Southgate, D., and Haab, T. 2009. “Is Better Drinking Water Valued in the Latin American Countryside? Some Evidence from Cotacachi, Ecuador.” Water International 34(3): 325–334.Google Scholar
de Oca, G. Soto Montes, and Bateman, I.J. 2006. “Scope Sensitivity in Households' Willingness to Pay for Maintained and Improved Water Supplies in a Developing World Urban Area: Investigating the Influence of Baseline Supply Quality and Income Distribution upon Stated Preferences in Mexico City.” Water Resources Research 42: W07421. doi:10.1029/2005WR003981.Google Scholar
Vásquez, W.F., Mozumder, P., Hernández-Arce, J., and Berrens, R.P. 2009. “Willingness to Pay for Safe Drinking Water: Evidence from Parral, Mexico.” Journal of Environmental Management 90(11): 3391–3400.Google Scholar
Vossler, C.A., Ethier, R.G., Poe, G.L., and Welsh, M.P. 2003. “Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test.” Southern Economic Journal 69(4): 886–902.Google Scholar
Warren-Leubecker, A., and Bohannon, J.N. 1982. “The Effects of Expectation and Feedback on Speech to Foreigners.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11(3): 207–215.Google Scholar
Whitehead, J.C. 1995. “Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Comparative Statics and Interpretation of Contingent Valuation Results.” Land Economics 71(2): 207–215.Google Scholar
Whitehead, J.C., and Cherry, T.L. 2007. “Willingness to Pay for a Green Energy Program: A Comparison of Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Approaches.” Resource and Energy Economics 29(4): 247–261.Google Scholar
Whittington, D. 1998. “Administering Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries.” World Development 26(1): 21–30.Google Scholar
Whittington, D. 2002. Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries. Environmental and Resource Economics 22(1-2): 323–367.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2008. Nicaragua: Informe sobre la Pobreza 1993–2005. Informe No. 39736-NI. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar