Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 95–117 | Cite as

The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing

  • Roy Brouwer
  • Frank A. Spaninks


This paper provides further empirical evidence of the validity of environmental benefits transfer based on CV studies by expanding the analysis to include control factors which have not been accounted for in previous studies. These factors refer to differences in respondent attitudes. Traditional population characteristics were taken into account, but these variables do not explain why respondents from the same socio-economic group may still hold different beliefs, norms or values and hence have different attitudes and consequently state different WTP amounts. The test results are mixed. The function transfer approach is valid in one case, but is rejected in the 3 other cases investigated in this paper. We provide further evidence that in the case of statistically valid benefits transfer, the function approach results in a more robust benefits transfer than the unit value approach. We also show that the equality of coefficient estimates is a necessary, but insufficient condition for valid benefit function transfer and discuss the implications for previous and future validity testing.

benefits transfer contingent valuation environmental valuation validity testing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schuman (1993), Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, January 15, Vol. 58no. 10: 4601–4644.Google Scholar
  2. Bergland, O., K. Magnussen and S. Navrud (1995), Benefit Transfer: Testing for Accuracy and Reliability. Discussion Paper, #D-03/1995, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway.Google Scholar
  3. Boyle, K. J. and J. C. Bergstrom (1992), ‘Benefit Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism, and Idealism’, Water Resources Research 28(3), 675–683.Google Scholar
  4. Brouwer, R. (1995), The Measurement of the Non-Marketable Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of Dutch Peat Meadow Land. Wageningen Economic Paper, 1995–1, Wageningen Agricultural University.Google Scholar
  5. Brouwer, R., I. H. Langford, I. J. Bateman, T. C. Crowards and R. K. Turner (1997), A Meta-Analysis of Wetland Contingent Valuation Studies. GEC Working Paper 97–20, CSERGE, University of East Anglia and University College London.Google Scholar
  6. Costanza, R., R. d’Arge. R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Nacem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt (1997), ‘The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital’, Nature 387, 253–260.Google Scholar
  7. Cramer, J. S. (1986), Econometric Applications of Maximum Likelihood Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Desvousges, W. H., M. C. Naughton and G. R. Parsons (1992), ‘Benefit Transfer: Conceptual Problems in Estimating Water Quality Benefits Using Existing Studies’, Water Resources Research 28(3), 675–683.Google Scholar
  9. Diamond, P. A., J. A. Hausman, G. Leonard and M. A. Denning (1993), ‘Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence’, in J. A. Hausman, ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Contributions to Economic Analysis 220. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  10. DilIman, D. A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Downing, M. and T. Ozuna Jr (1996), ‘Testing the Reliability of the Benefit Function Transfer Approach’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 316–322.Google Scholar
  12. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  13. Greene, W. H. (1990), Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  14. Halstead, J.M., B. E. Lindsay and C. M. Brown (1991), ‘Use of the Tobit Model in Contingent Valuation: Experimental Evidence from the Pemigewaset Wilderness Area’, Journal of Environmental Management 33, 79–89.Google Scholar
  15. Hoevenagel, R. (1994), The Contingent Valuation Method: Scope and Validity. PhD-thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Kirchhoff, S., B. G. Colby and J. T. LaFrance (1997), ‘Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 75–93.Google Scholar
  17. Loomis, J. B. (1992), ‘The Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefit Transfer: Benefit Function Transfer’, Water Resources Research 28(3), 701–705.Google Scholar
  18. Loomis, J. B., B. Roach, F. Ward, and R. Ready (1995), Testing Transferability of Recreation Demand Models Across Regions: A Study of Corps of Engineer Reservoirs’, Water Resources Research 31(3), 721–730.Google Scholar
  19. Maddala, G. S. (1983), Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. O’Doherty, R. K. (1996), Contingent Valuation and Benefit Transfer: An Assessment in a Local Planning Context. Working Papers in Economics, No. 19, Faculty of Economics and Social Science, University of the West of England, Bristol.Google Scholar
  21. Parsons, G. R. and M. J. Kealy (1994), ‘Benefits Transfer in a Random Utility Model of Recreation’, Water Resources Research 30(8), 2477–2484.Google Scholar
  22. Pearce, D. W., D. Whittington and S. Georgiou (1994), Project and Policy Appraisal: Integrating Economics and Environment. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  23. Spaninks, F. A. (1993), Een Schatting van de Sociale Baten van Beheersovereenkomsten met behulp van de Contingent Valuation Methode. MSc-thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Policy, Wageningen Agricultural University.Google Scholar
  24. Spaninks, F. A. and R. Hoevenagel (1995), Temporal Embedding in Contingent Valuation. Paper presented at the 6th annual meeting of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), Umeå, Sweden, June 17–20.Google Scholar
  25. Terwan, P. (1988), Landbouw en Natuur in Veenweidegebieden, Perspectieven voor Verweving. Centrum voor Landbouw en Milieu en Landelijk Overleg van Boerenwerkgroepen in Relatienotagebieden. Utrecht: Drukkerij Elinkwijk B.V.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy Brouwer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frank A. Spaninks
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE)University of East AngliaNorwich and
  2. 2.University College LondonUK (e-mail
  3. 3.Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations