Elena Y. Besedin

What Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing Values

The use of estimated willingness to pay (WTP) to evaluate welfare associated with changes in the quality of recreational fishing presumes that WTP reflects variations in resource and policy attributes, and is not inappropriately influenced by attributes of applied non-market study methodology. This paper describes a meta-analysis conducted to identify systematic patterns in marginal WTP per fish among recreational anglers. Results establish the presence of systematic WTP variation associated with resource, context, and angler attributes, yet also indicate that WTP is subject to systematic variation associated with study methodology. While results are promising with regard to the ability of non-market research to provide insight regarding WTP for recreational fishery resources, they also suggest that researchers should consider the potential for methodological effects when conducting applied welfare analysis.

Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators

Stated preference surveys often provide ambiguous descriptions of ecological commodities, yielding welfare estimates that have unclear interpretations and cannot be linked to measurable outcomes. This paper proposes guidelines to promote ecological content validity in survey scenarios and defensible use of ecological information for welfare analysis. These guidelines are illustrated through an application to migratory fish restoration. Content validity is evaluated vis-á-vis norms for communication of ecological changes in the ecological literature. Findings suggest that less structured treatment of ecological commodities may lead to an omission of information that is relevant to respondents and essential for valid welfare estimation. (JEL Q51, Q57)

Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes

Stated preference scenarios often provide information on intermediate biophysical processes but omit information on the resulting final services that provide utility. This may cause respondents to speculate about the effects of intermediate outcomes on their welfare, leading to biased welfare estimates. This work clarifies distinctions between intermediate and final ecosystem services within stated preference valuation and develops a structural model by which to infer respondents’ speculations when a final ecosystem service is omitted. The model also derives implications for welfare estimates. Methods and results are illustrated using an application of choice experiments to fish restoration in Rhode Islands Pawtuxet watershed.

Biophysical Causality and Environmental Preference Elicitation: Evaluating the Validity of Welfare Analysis over Intermediate Outcomes

&NA; Stated preference scenarios often describe outcomes to be valued in terms of intermediate biophysical processes or ecosystem services with indirect utility effects, rather than in terms of final, directly welfare‐relevant consequences. This article evaluates whether valid welfare estimates can emerge from this practice. We begin with a theoretical model demonstrating conditions under which stated preference scenarios that include intermediate outcomes will elicit welfare estimates identical to those from parallel scenarios that include associated final outcomes (i.e., convergent validity will hold). The model demonstrates that a necessary condition for convergent validity is the ability of respondents to correctly predict biophysical production functions linking intermediate to final outcomes. Hypotheses from the theoretical model are then evaluated empirically using an application of choice experiments to migratory fish restoration in the U.S. state of Rhode Island. Empirical results are mixed but generally reject convergent validity; welfare estimates are not robust to the use of an intermediate outcome in lieu of a related final outcome in stated preference scenarios, as predicted by theory. Results of the analysis suggest that greater attention should be given to the reliability of welfare estimation when final outcomes cannot be quantified.