Public Choice

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 235–252 | Cite as

The advantages of contingent valuation methods for benefit-cost analysis

  • David S. Brookshire
  • Thomas D. Crocker

Summary and conclusions

The preceding is a taxonomic discussion of some reasons why contingent market methods may often be a superior means of generating data with which to value non-market commodities. We have argued that economists have erred in viewing the situations these methods posit as necessarily fictional; that the data generated by the methods may, for non-marketed goods and the activities with which they are associated, accord more closely with the conditions of received economic theory; that the methods can make it easier to remove the difficulties of estimation and interpretation introduced by confounding variables; and that they often permit one to deal more readily with phenomena that have not been in the range of historical experience. Nevertheless, whatever the advantages, a major disadvantage remains. Until detailed analytical knowledge is acquired of the manner in which expectations are formed, there exists no way to refute empirical propositions established from contingent markets. Nevertheless, the previously mentioned South Coast Air Basin experiment, where the bids obtained for clean air conformed fairly closely to the values implied in a residential property value study, suggest that contingent valuations have a basis in the real decision processes of consumers.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bayes, T. (1764). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. In Philosophical transactions, giving some account of the present undertakings, studies, and labours of the ingenious in many considerable parts of the world for the year 1763. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-David, S., Schulze, W.D., Noll, S., and Thayer, M. (1977). The economics of geothermal energy: A case study. National Science Foundation Project Report APR 75-18249.Google Scholar
  3. Bohm, P. (1972). Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Review 3 (2): 111–130.Google Scholar
  4. Bradford, D.D. (1970). Benefit-cost analysis and demand curves for public goods. Kyklos 23 (4): 775–387.Google Scholar
  5. Bradford, D.D., and Hildebrandt, M. (1977). Observable preferences for public goods. Journal of Public Economics 8 (June): 106–114.Google Scholar
  6. Brookshire, D., d'Arge, R. (1979). Resource impacted communities: Economics, planning, and management. Paper presented at 4th U.S.-U.S.S.R. Symposium on Comprehensive Analysis of the Environment, Jackson, Wyoming, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Brookshire, D., d'Arge, R., Schulze, W., and Thayer, M. (forthcoming (a)). Experiments in valuing public goods. In V.K. Smith (Ed.), Advances in applied microeconomics. JAI Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Brookshire, D., Ives, B., and Schulze, W. (1976). The valuation of aesthetic preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3 (4): 325–346.Google Scholar
  9. Brookshire, D., Randall, A., and Stoll, J. (forthcoming (b)). Valuing increments and decrements in natural resource service flows. American Journal of Agricultural Economics.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, J. (1969). Cost and choice. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  11. Cummings, R.G., and Schulze, W. (1978). Social valuation of municipal infrastructure in boomtowns: A second look. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  12. Curry, J.W. (1979). The visual aesthetic impact of alternative closed cycle cooling systems, Vol. 1. Report to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, R. (1963). Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal 3: 239–249.Google Scholar
  14. Diewert, W.E. (1974). Applications of duality theory. In M.D. Intrilligator and D.A. Kendrick (Eds.), Frontiers of quantitative economics, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 106–160.Google Scholar
  15. Freeman, A.M. III (1979). The benefits of environmental improvement. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fromm, G. (1968). Comment. In S.B. Chase, Jr. (Ed.), Problems in public expenditure analysis. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. 166–176.Google Scholar
  17. Gramlich, F.W. (1977). The demand for clear water: The case of the Charles River. National Tax Journal 30 (2): 183–194.Google Scholar
  18. Hammack, J., and Brown, G. (1974). Waterfowl and wetlands: Toward bioeconomic analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hicks, J.R. (1934). A reconsideration of the theory of value, Part 1. Economica 1 (Feb.): 52–76.Google Scholar
  20. Hori, H. (1975). Revealed preference for public goods. The American Economic Review 65 (Dec.): 978–991.Google Scholar
  21. Horst, R., and Crocker, T. (1978). Household substitution model of the value of visibility. Paper presented at the Western Economic Association Meetings, Honolulu, Hawaii 1978.Google Scholar
  22. Jones-Lee, M.W. (1976). The value of life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Keeley, M.C., Robins, P.K., Spiegelman, R.G., and West, R.W. (1978). The estimation of labour supply models using experimental data. The American Economic Review 68 (Dec.): 873–887.Google Scholar
  24. Loehman, E., Ben-David, S., and De, V.H. (1978). Measuring demand and political acceptability for non-market goods: A case study of health effects related to air quality. Informal Note, CEPR-IB-78-3, SRI International (Oct.).Google Scholar
  25. Loehman, E. et al. (forthcoming). Distributional analysis of regional benefits and costs of air quality control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.Google Scholar
  26. Mäler, K.G. (1974). Environmental economics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Medawar, P.B. (1979). Induction and intuition in scientific thought. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
  28. Mills, E.S., and Feenberg, D. (1977). Measuring benefits of water pollution abatement. A paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Economic Association, New York. (Dec. 28).Google Scholar
  29. Morgenstern, O. (1959). On the accuracy of economic observations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Newhouse, J.P., Phelps, C.E., and Schwartz, W.B. (1974). Policy options and the impact of National Health Insurance. R-1528-HEW/DEO. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp. (June).Google Scholar
  31. Norgaard, R.B., and Hall, D.C. (1974). Environmental amenity rights, transactions costs, and technological change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1 (Dec.): 251–267.Google Scholar
  32. O'Hanlon, P.W., and Sinden, J.A. (1978). Scope for valuation of environmental goods: Comment. Land Economics 54 (Aug.): 381–387.Google Scholar
  33. Plott, C.R. (1979). Experimental methods in political economy: A tool for regulatory research. Social Science Working Paper. California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  34. Randall, A., Grunewald, O., Johnson, S., Ausness, R., and Pagoulatos, A. (1978). Reclaiming coal surface mines in central Appalachia: A case study of the benefits and costs. Land Economics 54 (Nov.): 472–489.Google Scholar
  35. Randall, A., Ives, B., and Eastman, C. (1974). Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1 (2): 132–149.Google Scholar
  36. Rowe, R., d'Arge, R., and Brookshire, D. (forthcoming). An experiment on the economic value of visibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.Google Scholar
  37. Rowe, R., d'Arge, R., and Brookshire, D. (forthcoming). Environmental preferences and effluent charges. Resource and Environmental Economics Laboratory, University of Wyoming Research Paper No. 6.Google Scholar
  38. Samuelson, P. (1955). Diagrammatic exposition of a theory of public expenditures. Review of Economics and Statistics 37 (Nov.): 350–356.Google Scholar
  39. Sinden, J.A., and Wyckoff, J.B. (1976). Indifference mapping: An empirical methodology for economic evaluation of the environment. Regional Science and Urban Economics 6 (March): 81–103.Google Scholar
  40. Slutsky, E. (1915). Sulla leoria del bilancio del consumatore. Giormale degli Economisti 51: 1–26.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, V.K., and Krutilla, J.V. (1979). Resource and environmental constraints to growth. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (Aug.): 395–408.Google Scholar
  42. Strauss, R.P., and Hughes, G.O. (1976). A new approach to the demand for public goods. Journal of Public Economics 6 (Oct.): 191–204.Google Scholar
  43. Vaughn, R. (1974). The value of urban open space. Working Paper 78. Program on Environmental Pollutants and the Urban Economy, Center for Urban Studies, University of Chicago (Aug.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • David S. Brookshire
    • 1
  • Thomas D. Crocker
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations