TY - JOUR
T1 - On the adequacy of scope test results
T2 - Comments on Desvousges, Mathews, and Train
AU - Chapman, David J.
AU - Bishop, Richard C.
AU - Hanemann, William
AU - Kanninen, Barbara J.
AU - Krosnick, Jon A.
AU - Morey, Edward R.
AU - Tourangeau, Roger
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2016/10/1
Y1 - 2016/10/1
N2 - Desrvousges et al. (2012) investigate criteria for judging the adequacy of scope test differences in contingent valuation studies. They focus particular attention on our study (Chapman et al. 2009), arguing that, while it demonstrated a statistically significant scope effect, the effect is too small. Unfortunately, DMT misinterpreted Chapman et al., an error that makes DMT's criticisms of our study invalid.
AB - Desrvousges et al. (2012) investigate criteria for judging the adequacy of scope test differences in contingent valuation studies. They focus particular attention on our study (Chapman et al. 2009), arguing that, while it demonstrated a statistically significant scope effect, the effect is too small. Unfortunately, DMT misinterpreted Chapman et al., an error that makes DMT's criticisms of our study invalid.
KW - Contingent valuation
KW - Scope test
KW - Water pollution
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978505394&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978505394&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.022
DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.022
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:84978505394
SN - 0921-8009
VL - 130
SP - 356
EP - 360
JO - Ecological Economics
JF - Ecological Economics
ER -