Abstract
The NOAA panel suggested that use of photographs should be pre-tested to explore their effects on subjects (Arrow et al. 1993). For this paper, a modification to the test suggested by the NOAA Panel was made. We tested whether use of colored, as opposed to black and white (B & W), photographs influence respondents’ valuation of the environmental commodity in question. The context of the test is a CVM study valuing the benefits from protecting the national bird. This was performed using two drop-off surveys that were identical except for the color of the photographs incorporated in the survey instrument. The dichotomous choice logit equations were statistically different between the two treatments of the questionnaire, indicating the significant effect of colored photographs on the respondents’ WTP. The findings support the NOAA Panel recommendation of careful pre-testing and scrutiny of the photographs integrated in the questionnaire since ‘packaging’ of the environmental good (i.e., endangered species protection) matters in valuing benefits associated with it. Since colored photographs are found to be value-enhancing, to simply use B & W photos as an attempt to reduce cost associated with implementing the contingent valuation (CV) survey, especially when limited research money is involved, would result to lower the estimated value of the environmental good.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anglin G and Levie W (1985). Role of visual richness in picture recognition memory. Percept Mot Skills 61: 1303–1306
Alfnes F, Guttormsen A, Steine G and Kolstad K (2006). Consumers’ willingness to pay for the color of salmon: a choice experiment with real economic incentives. Am J Agric Econ 88(4): 1050–1061
Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R and Schuman H (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601–4614
Bateman I, Dent S, Peters E, Slovic P, Starmer C (2007) The affect heuristic and the attractiveness of simple gambles. J Behav Decis Mak, DOI: 10.1002/bdm.558
Bateman I, Jones A, Jude S, Day B (2006) Reducing gains/loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment (VRCE) valuing land use change. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 06-16. www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/edm_2006_16.htm – 8k
Bishop RC and Heberlein TA (1979). Measuring values of extramarket goods: are indirect measures biased?. Am J Agric Econ 61: 926–930
Carson RT and Groves GT (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37: 181–210
Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC and McCollum DW (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value non-use benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 33(2): 151–162
Choe K, Whittington D and Lauria D (1996). The economic benefits of surface water quality improvement in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Econ 72: 519–527
Corso PS, Hammitt JK and Graham JD (2001). Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain 23(2): 165–184
Cummings R and Taylor L (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649–665
Ekstrand ER and Loomis J (1998). Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish. Water Resour Res 34(5): 3149–3155
Fagerlin A, Wang C and Ubel P (2005). Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?. Med Decis Mak 25: 398–405
Greene WH (1990). Econometric analysis. Macmillan, New York
Hanemann M (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3): 332–341
Hanemann M (1989). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am J Agric Econ 71(4): 1057–1061
Jordan J, Shewfelt R, Garner J and Variyam J (1990). Estimating the value of internal quality aspects to consumers. Acta Hort (ISHS) 259: 139–144
Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ and Nancarrow BE (1999). Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14: 131–150
Joseph J and Proffitt D (1996). Semantic versus perceptual influences of color in object recognition. J Exp Psychol: Learn Mem Cognit 22: 407–429
Lauria D, Whittington D, Choe K, Turingan C and Abiad V (1999). Household demand for improved sanitation services: a case study for Calamba, Philippines. In: Bateman, I and Willis, K (eds) Valuing method in the US, EU and developing countries, pp. Oxford University Press, New York
Lipkus I and Hollands J (1999). The visual communication of risk. J Nat Canc Inst Monogr 25: 149–163
Loomis J and duVair PH (1993). Evaluating the effect of alternative risk communication devices on willingness to pay: results from a dichotomous choice contingent valuation experiment. Land Econ 69: 287–298
McGregor D and Slovic P (1986). Graphic representation of judgmental information. Hum Comput Interact 2(3): 179–200
Park T, Loomis J and Creel M (1991). Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choices contingent valuation studies. Land Econ 67(1): 64–73
Ready R, Navrud S (1999) How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Manuscript, Agricultural University of Norway
Samnaliev M, Stevens T and More T (2006). A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 57(3): 507–519
Shyamsundar P and Kramer RA (1996). Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. J Environ Econ Manage 31: 129–144
Solvic P, Finucane ML, Peters E and MacGregor DG (2002). The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich, T, Griffin, D, and Kahneman, D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment., pp 397–420. Cambridge University Press, New York
Whittington D, Smith VK, Okorafor A, Okore A, Long Liu J and McPhail A (1992). Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: developing countries application. J Environ Econ Manage 22: 205–225
Wichmann F, Sharpe L and Gegenfurtner K (2002). The contributions of color to recognition memory for natural scenes. J Exp Psychol 28(3): 509–520
Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A and Ubel P (2005). What’s time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Risk Anal 25(3): 589–595
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Labao, R., Francisco, H., Harder, D. et al. Do Colored Photographs Affect Willingness to Pay Responses for Endangered Species Conservation?. Environ Resource Econ 40, 251–264 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9151-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9151-2