Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Un no como respuesta: interpretación, tratamiento y análisis en estudios de valoración contingente
A ‘no’ as an answer: Interpretation, treatment and analysis in contingent valuation studies
Um não como resposta: interpretação, tratamento e análise em estudos de avaliação contingente
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/cuad.econ.v38n77.66319Palavras-chave:
valoración contingente, respuesta protesta, filtración de preferencias (es)Contingent valuation, protest response, preference filtering (en)
avaliação contingente, resposta protesto, filtração de preferências (pt)
Downloads
El método de valoración contingente (MVC) es extensivamente usado para asistir decisiones de carácter público. Preocupa, sin embargo, que una proporción importante de individuos proveen una disposición a pagar de cero que no es reconciliable con la teoría económica. Basado en tres ejercicios de MVC, este artículo examina las motivaciones detrás de estos ceros no económicos (protesta) y sus implicaciones para la estimación de valores monetarios. Los resultados muestran que detrás de las protestas hay motivaciones éticas y de equidad que deberían ser consideradas en los procesos de decisión, pero que quedan escondidas al seguir el procedimiento convencional del MVC.
The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is widely used to assist public decisions. It is worrying, however, that a significant proportion of individuals provide a willingness to pay from scratch, which is not reconcilable with the economic theory. Using three CVM exercises carried out in Colombia, this study examines what motivates these non-economic zeros (protest) responses and their implications for the estimation of monetary values. Our results show that protest responses are supported by ethical and fairness motivations, which should be taken into account in decision making but are ignored if one follows the conventional CVM procedure.
O método de avaliação contingente (MVC) é extensivamente usado para assistir decisões de caráter público. Preocupa, no entanto, que uma proporção importante de indivíduos provém uma disposição zero de pagar que não é reconciliável com a teoria econômica. Baseado em três exercícios de MVC, este artigo examina as motivações por trás destes zeros não econômicos (protesto) e suas implicações para a estimação de valores monetários. Os resultados mostram que por trás dos protestos há motivações éticas e de igualdade que deveriam ser consideradas nos processos de decisão, mas que ficam escondidas seguindo o procedimento convencional do MVC.
Referências
Atkinson, G., Morse-Jones, S., Mourato, S., & Provins, A. (2012). 'When to take "no" for an answer'? Using entreaties to reduce protests in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51(4), 497-523.
Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & Gómez-Limón, J. A. (2008). Reconsidering heterogeneity and aggregation issues in environmental valuation: A multi-attribute approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 40(4), 551-570.
Barrio, M., & Loureiro, M. (2013). The impact of protest responses in choice experiments: An application to a Biosphere Reserve Management Program. Forest Systems, 22(1), 94-105.
Bonnichsen, O., & Ladenburg, J. (2009). Using an ex-ante entreaty to reduce protest zero bias in stated preference surveys: A health economic case. Journal of Choice Modelling, 2(2), 200-215.
Brouwer, R., & Martín-Ortega, J. (2012). Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability. Resource and Energy Economics, 54(1), 151-166.
Cameron, T. A., & Huppert, D. D. (1989). OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17(3), 230-246.
Carson, R., & Hanemann, W. (2005). Contingent Valuation. En K.-G. Maler & J. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics. Valuing environmental changes (vol. 2, pp. 821-936). North Holland.
Chee, Y. E. (2004). An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 120(4), 549-565.
Collins, A. R., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2007). Protest adjustments in the valuation of watershed restoration using payment card data. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 36(2), 321-335.
Common, M., Reid, I., & Blamey, R. (1997). Do existence values for cost benefit analysis exist? Environmental and Resource Economics, 9(2), 225-238.
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Dan, A. (2009). How deliberation affects stated willingness to pay for mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions: An experiment. Land Economics, 85(2), 329-347.
Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Nueva York, EE. UU.: Oxford University Press.
Dziegielewska, D. A., & Mendelsohn, R. (2007). Does "No" mean "No"? A protest methodology. Environmental and Resource Economics, 38(1), 71-87.
Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1-26.
Fischhoff, B., & Furby, L. (1988). Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(2), 147-184.
Freeman, A. M. (1986). On assessing the state of the arts of the contingent valuation method of valuing environmental changes. En R. Cummings, D. Brookshire & W. Schulze (Eds.), Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa, EE. UU.: Row-man & Allanheld Publishers.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., & Montes, C. (2011). Exploring the motivations of protesters in contingent valuation: Insights for conservation policies. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(1), 76-88.
Gowdy, J. M. (2004). The revolution in welfare economics and its implications for environmental valuation and policy. Land Economics, 80(2), 239-257.
Gowdy, J. M., & Mayumi, K. (2001). Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 39(2), 223-237.
Grammatikopoulou, I., & Olsen, S. B. (2013). Accounting protesting and warm glow bidding in Contingent Valuation surveys considering the management of environmental goods: An empirical case study assessing the value of protecting a Natura 2000 wetland area in Greece. Journal of Environmental Management, 130, 232-241.
Gutmann, A., & Thomson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princenton, EE. UU.: Princeton University Press.
Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources: The econometrics of non-market valuation. Cheltenham, RU: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Haddad, B., & Howarth, R. (2009). Protest bids, commensurability, and substitution: Contingent valuation and ecological economics. En A. Alberini & J. Kahn (Eds.), Handbook on contingent valuation (pp. 133-152). Cheltenham, RU: Edward Elgar Publishing .
Halstead, J. M., Luloff, A. E., & Stevens, T. H. (1992). Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21(2), 160-169.
Jeanty, P. W. (2007). Constructing krinsky and robb confidence intervals for mean and median willingness to pay (WTP) using stata. Trabajo presentado en 6th North American Stata Users' Work Group Meeting, organizado por The Ohio State University. Boston, EE. UU.
Jordan, J. L., & Elnagheeb, A. H. (1994). Differences in contingent valuation estimates from referendum and checklist questions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 19(1), 115-128.
Jones, N., Sophoulis, C. M., & Malesios, C. (2008). Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(6), 2478-2491.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Syme, G. J. (2000). Protest responses and willingness to pay: Attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics, 33(2), 251-265.
Jorgensen, B. S., Syme, G. J., Bishop, B. J., & Nancarrow, B. E. (1999). Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14(1), 131-150.
Lo, A. Y. (2011). Analysis and democracy: The antecedents of the deliberative approach of ecosystems valuation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(6), 958-974.
Lo, A. Y. (2012). The encroachment of value pragmatism on pluralism: The practice of the valuation of urban green space using stated-preference approaches. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1), 121-135.
Lo, A. Y. (2013). Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: Reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change. Ecological Economics, 87, 84-94.
Lo, A. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2010). Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 113-120.
Lo, A. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2015). Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method. Ecological Economics, 114, 58-66.
Lo, A. Y., & Spash, C. L. (2013). Deliberative monetary valuation: In search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(4), 768-789.
Lockwood, M. (1998). Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons. Ecological Economics, 25(1), 73-87.
López-Mosquera, N., & Sánchez, M. (2011). The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: An application of the means-end chain theory. Tourism Management, 32(4), 875-889.
Mahieu, P. A., Riera, P., & Giergiczny, M. (2012). Determinants of willingness-to-pay for water pollution abatement: A point and interval data payment card application. Journal of Environmental Management, 108, 49-53.
Martínez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & O'neill, J. (1998). Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 26(3), 277-286.
Meyerhoff, J., & Liebe, U. (2006). Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics, 57(4), 583-594.
Meyerhoff, J., & Liebe, U. (2010). Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: A meta-study. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 366-374.
Meyerhoff, J., Mørkbak, M. R., & Olsen, S. B. (2014). A meta-study investigating the sources of protest behaviour in stated preference surveys. Environmental and Resource Economics, 58(1), 35-57.
Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (2013). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, D. C., EE. UU.: Resources for the Future.
O'Hara, S. U. (1996). Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 16(2), 95-107.
O'neill, J., & Spash, C. L. (2000). Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making. Environmental Values, 9(4), 521-536.
Rekola, M. (2003). Lexicographic preferences in contingent valuation: A theoretical framework with illustrations. Land Economics, 79(2), 277-291.
Reyes Hernández, L. P., & Yepes Tafur, M. A. (2013). Evaluación económica de preservar el mono Tití Cabeciblanco: una aplicación del método de valoración contingente. Economía & Región, 7(1), 69-99.
Sagoff, M. (1998). Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics, 24(2-3), 213-230.
Schkade, D. A., & Payne's, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(1), 88-109.
Spash, C. L. (2000a). Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: The case of wetland re-creation. Ecological Economics, 34(2), 195-215.
Spash, C. L. (2000b). Multiple value expression in contingent valuation: Economics and ethics. Environmental Science & Technology, 34(8), 1433-1438.
Spash, C. L. (2006). Non-economic motivation for contingent values: Rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Economics, 82(4), 602-622.
Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 690-699.
Spash, C. L., & Hanley, N. (1995). Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics, 12(3), 191-208.
Spash, C. L., Urama, K., Burton, R., Kenyon, W., Shannon, P., & Hill, G. (2009). Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 955-964.
Stevens, T. H., Echeverría, J., Glass, R. J., Hager, T., & More, T. A. (1991). Measuring the existence value of wildlife: What do CVM estimates really show. Land Economics, 67(4), 390-400.
Strazzera, E., Genius, M., Scarpa, R., & Hutchinson, G. (2003). The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites. Environmental and Resource Economics, 25(4), 461-476.
Strazzera, E., Scarpa, R., Calia, P., Garrod, G. D., & Willis, K. G. (2003). Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys. Applied Economics, 35(2), 133-138.
Svedsäter, H. (2003). Economic valuation of the environment: How citizens make sense of contingent valuation questions. Land Economics, 79(1), 122-135.
Szabó, Z. (2011). Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecological Economics, 72, 37-44.
Tobarra-González, M. A. (2014). Valoración del Parque Natural de Calblanque y tratamiento de respuestas protesta. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales, 14(1), 57-80.
Vadnjal, D., & O'Connor, M. (1994). What is the value of Rangitoto Island? Environmental Values, 3(4), 369-380.
Vargas, A., & Díaz, D. (2014). Community-based conservation programs and local people willingness to pay for wildlife protection: The case of the cotton-top tamarin in the Colombian Caribbean. Lecturas de Economía, 81, 187-206.
Vargas, A., & Díaz, D. (2017). Going along with the crowd? The importance of group effects for environmental deliberative monetary valuation. Cuadernos de Economía, 36(70), 75-94.
Vargas, A., Lo, A., Howes, M., & Rohde, N. (2017). The problem of inclusion in deliberative environmental valuation. Environmental Values, 26(2), 157-176.
Vargas, A., Lo, A. Y., Rohde, N., & Howes, M. (2016). Background inequality and differential participation in deliberative valuation: Lessons from small-group discussions on forest conservation in Colombia. Ecological Economics, 129, 104-111.
Vatn, A. (2000). The environment as a commodity. Environmental Values, 9(4), 493-509.
Vatn, A. (2004). Environmental valuation and rationality. Land Economics, 80(1), 1-18.
Vatn, A. (2009). Cooperative behavior and institutions. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(1), 188-196.
Villanueva, A. J., Glenk, K., & Rodríguez-Entrena, M. (2017). Protest responses and willingness to accept: Ecosystem services providers' preferences towards incentive-based schemes. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(3), 801-821.
Wilner, J. (2007). Constructing Krinsky and Robb confidence intervals for mean and median Willingness to Pay (WTP) using STATA. 6th North American Stata Users' Work Group Meeting (August 13-14, 2007). Boston, EE.UU.: The Ohio State University.
Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. Nueva York, EE. UU.: Oxford University Press .
Como Citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Baixar Citação
CrossRef Cited-by
1. Ismael Suárez-Medina, Deiser Herrera. (2024). Valoración económica ambiental del recurso hídrico de la cuenca del río Chirimayo, en los distritos de Chadín y Paccha - Perú. Gestionar: revista de empresa y gobierno, 4(1), p.35. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rg.2024.01.003.
Dimensions
PlumX
Acessos à página de resumo
Downloads
Licença
Copyright (c) 2019 Cuadernos de EconomíaCuadernos de Economía, através da Divisão de Bibliotecas da Universidad Nacional de Colombia, promove e garante o acesso aberto a todos os seus conteúdos. Os artigos publicados pela revista estão disponíveis globalmente com acesso aberto e licenciados sob os termos da Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), o que implica o seguinte:
