1. The Valuation of Ecological Goods and Services: A Field Experiment Using the Contingent Valuation Survey Method Matthew A. Wilson a, Thomas A. Heberlein a, Richard C. Bishop b and Nora C. Schaeffer a a University of Wisconsin-Madison Departments of Sociology and Rural Sociology b University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Applied and Agricultural Economics

4. SCOPE SENSITIVITY “Perhaps the most important internal argument against the reliability of the CV approach is the observation of SCOPE INSENSITIVITY. Different, but similar, samples of respondents are asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for the Prevention of environmental damage scenarios that are IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THEIR SCALE: Different numbers of seabirds saved, different numbers of forest tracts preserved from logging, etc. Yet it is reported that average WTP is often substantial for the smallest scenario presented but is then Substantially INDEPENDENT of the size of the damage averted, rising only slightly if at all for large Changes in the size of the damage. NOAA Blue Ribbon Panel (1993) THE SCOPE SENSITIVITY TEST: A scope test requires that people’s choices consistently lead to larger total willingness to pay (WTP) for larger amounts of the same environmental object and smaller WTP for the smaller amounts

5. $WTP Whole Cognitive Strength Affective Strength Attitude-Behavior Model of Scope Sensitivity $WTP Part Attitude Towards The Good Direct Experience Environmental Values Attitudes And Values Strength Variables Recreational Experiences Knowledge Think About Evaluate Extremity Satisfaction Extremity

6. Water Quality Part Nested Environmental Goods: Categorical Nesting Whole Maintain Water Quality in All the Lakes of Vilas and Oneida Counties Maintain Water Quality in the Minocqua Chain of Lakes Part Wolves Quantitative Nesting Whole 800 Wolves in Northern Wisconsin Part 300 Wolves in Northern Wisconsin

7. SURVEY METHODS

9. Wolf (Part) * Water Quality (Whole) Wolf (Whole) * Water Quality (Part) Mixed-Mode Mail and Telephone Survey Design 2 weeks Mail Survey Advance Letter Mail Questionnaire Reminder Telephone Mail Questionnaire 1 week Telephone 1Telephone 2 ** * Random-Order CATI Sequence 60% Response Rate N=876 46% Response Rate N=678 42% Response Rate N=618

11. Water Quality Telephone Administered Scenario Payment Vehicle WTP Elicitation

12. Environmental Attitudes and Values Water and Wolves

13. Ambivalent Strongly Ecocentric Values Strongly Anthropocentric Values

14. Affect Towards Water and Wolves Wilcoxon Ranks Test Z = -12.785 P <.000

15. Cognition Towards Water and Wolves Wilcoxon Ranks test Z = - 15.803 P <.000

16. Affect Towards Water and Wolves--Part and Whole Wilcoxon Rank Test Z = -15.340 P <.000

17. Cognition Towards Water and Wolves-- Part and Whole Wilcoxon Rank Test Z = -13.944 P <.000

18. Willingness To Pay and Binomial Tests of Scope Sensitivity

19. T = 3.810 P<.000 T = -1.911 P>.05

20. Dichotomous and Polytomous Scope Sensitivity Frequencies

21. Alternative Theoretical Models of Scope Sensitivity DICHOTOMOUS SCOPE MODEL SCOPE WTP P < WTP W

22. Binomial Scope Frequencies

23. Multinomial Scope Frequencies

24. Predicting Scope Sensitivity: Dichotomous Logistic Regression

25. Binomial Logistic Model Specification

27. Conclusions Survey Respondent’s Environmental Attitudes Predict Scope Sensitivity Property owner’s environmental Attitudes and attitude strength towards wolves and Water quality are causally related to Scope Sensitivity in a theoretically meaningful fashion. Respondent’s Affect (emotion) and Cognition (thoughts and knowledge) play different causal roles in predicting scope for wolves and water quality Survey Questionnaires can be used to estimate real dollar estimates for ecological goods and services. BUT, careful attention should be given to the “type” of good under consideration and their “affective” or “cognitive” nature. For goods like water quality it appears that valid economic values are readily attainable because of their strong relationship to thinking and knowledge (I.e., instrumental tradeoffs), while for others like Wolves, strong emotions may result in uncertain value estimates. Which suggests that: