Agricultural Economics and Development

Agricultural Economics and Development

Application of Speculative Valuation Method to Reduce Social Desirability Bias in Economic Valuation of Environment: A Case Study of Recreational Value of Nematabad Dam in Asadabad County of Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
A. Samdeliri 1
F. Mohammadian 2
1 Corresponding Author and Assistants Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Sayyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi University, Asadabad, Iran
2 Assistants Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Sayyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi University, Asadabad, Iran
10.30490/aead.2023.356269.1386
Abstract
Despite the development and acceptance of various value extraction methods for public goods and ecosystem services, these approaches may be affected by a number of critical biases causing the results of studies to be different from the real value of resources. The values obtained in hypothetical markets may be affected by Social Desirability Bias (SDB) significantly. This bias is mostly the result of incorporating social traditions and the interviewee's expectations into the answers of questions by other respondents rather than trying to leave truthful answers. This study aimed at investigating the presence of SDB in the economic valuation of the environment through comparing the application of conventional Contingent Valuation (CV) techniques and Inferred Valuation (IV) method. For this purpose, the individual values stated by respondents and their prediction of behaviors of other respondents were compared, focusing on the estimation of the recreational benefits derived from Nematabad Dam Lake in Asadabad County of Iran. The resulting mean willingness to pay (WTP) for recreational value of the concerned lake per visitor (household) in conventional CV technique was estimated by 153,568 IRI rials (US$ 0.56) while in IV method, it was estimated by 116,478 IRI rials (US$ 0.42) for each visit in 2021. A comparison of the calculated WTPs confirmed the presence of overestimation in the CV method, compared with those of the IV method. In other words, a comparison of individual values expressed by respondents and their prediction of other respondents' behaviors would confirm the research hypothesis assuming the presence of SDB in the conventional CV approach.

A comparison of the calculated WTPs confirms the presence of overestimation in the CV method compared with the IVM. In other words, a comparison of individual values expressed by respondents and their prediction of behaviors of other respondents confirms the research hypothesis, i.e., the presence of SDB in the traditional CV approach.
Keywords
Social Desirability Bias (SDB)
Inferred Valuation (IV) Method
Recreational Value
Nematabad (Dam)
Assadabad (County)
  1. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6): 1447-1458. DOI: 1086/261662.
  2. Becker, G. (1974). A Theory of Social Interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6): 1063-1093. DOI: 1086/260265.
  3. Boyle, K.J. and Bishop, R.C. (1988). Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: a comparison of techniques. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70: 20-28.
  4. Cooper, J.C., Hanemann, M. and Signorello, G. (2002). One-and-one-half-bound dichotomous- choice contingent valuation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4): 742-750.
  5. Drichoutis, A.C., Lusk, J.L. and Pappa, V. (2016). Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: a study of climate neutral foods. Food Policy, 61: 141-155.
  6. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  7. Fisher, R.J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20: 303-315.
  8. Frey, B.S. and Weck-Hanneman, H. (1984). The hidden economy as an ‘unobserved’ variable. European Economic Review, 26: 33-53.
  9. Harrison, G.W. and List, J.A. (2007). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4): 1009-1055.
  10. Johansson-Stenman, O. and Martinsson, P. (2006). Honestly, why are you driving a BMW? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 60: 129-146.
  11. Khong, T.D., Loch, A. and Young, M.D. (2019). Inferred valuation versus conventional contingent valuation: a salinity intrusion case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 243: 95-104.
  12. Leggett, C.G., Kleckner, N.S., Boyle, K.J., Dufield, J.W. and Mitchell, R.C. (2003). Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Land Economics, 79: 561-575.
  13. Levitt, S.D. and List, J.A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21: 153-174.
  14. Lopez-Becerra, E. and Alcon, F. (2021). Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: an inferred valuation approach. Ecological Economics, 184: 106988.
  15. Lusk, J.L. and Norwood, F.B. (2009). An inferred valuation method. Land Economics, 85: 500-514.
  16. Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
  17. Mohammadian, F. and Samdeliri, A. (2021). Evaluation of the accuracy of benefit transfers in contingent valuation method (case study: SardabRud River). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 52(3): 643-654. (Persian)
  18. Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H. and Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30: 313-325.
  19. Norwood, F.B. and Lusk, J.L. (2011). Social desirability bias in real, hypothetical, and inferred valuation experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93: 528-534.
  20. Plant, E.A., Devine, P.G. and Brazy, P.C. (2003). The bogus pipeline and motivations to respond without prejudice: revisiting the fading and faking of racial prejudice. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6: 187-200.
  21. Price, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Natural Resources Journal, 29: 895.
  22. Sugden, R. (2005). Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32: 1-12.
  23. Vassilopoulos, A., Avgeraki, N. and Klonaris, S. (2020). Social desirability and the WTP–WTA disparity in common goods. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22: 6425-6444. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-019-00490-6.
  24. Yadav, L., van Rensburg, T.M. and Kelley, H. (2013). A comparison between the conventional stated preference technique and an inferred valuation approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64: 405-422.