Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments

Choice experiments (CEs) are a relatively new approach to valuing environmental resources. Initial tests of the validity of the approach have either compared benefit estimates generated using CEs with those estimated using contingent valuation (CV) or used more sophisticated hypothesis tests of parameter equality. Although useful, existing tests have been restricted to testing consistency based on a single policy scenario (standard CV). We argue that, although these tests are informative, they fail to take full advantage of the richness of CE data. In particular, CE data allow for the calculation of benefit estimates over a range of policy scenarios (i.e. attribute combinations). A similar range of benefit estimates may be generated by pooling scenarios in a repeated CV study. In this paper, we explore this relationship between CV and CEs by conducting validity tests between a CE model and a repeated CV model over a range of three levels of improved water quality at Clear Lake, IA, USA. Evidence from this test suggests that the CE and CV data are consistent.