Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 189–198 | Cite as

Contingent values as implicit contracts: estimating minimum legal willingness to pay for conservation of large carnivores in Sweden

  • Göran Bostedt
  • Göran Ericsson
  • Jonas Kindberg


Mean willingness-to-pay (WTP) based on multiple bounded, discrete choice responses from contingent valuation surveys are normally obtained using some kind of parametric estimator. This paper instead exploits the possibility to interpret the response to the discrete-choice question as an implicit contract between the researcher and the respondent, resulting in a minimum legal WTP (MLW) estimator. Never previously used in valuation literature, it is used in this paper to estimate the WTP for the preservation of large carnivores in Sweden, based on a large scale, national survey. Results show that MLW estimates only were 12–19% of the comparable parametric estimates. In keeping with other results in contingent valuation literature, we find that the MLW estimates are positively related to the educational level, income and the fraction of urban population, while negatively related to age. Among the advantages of the MLW estimator is its transparency as well as the fact that it rests on a contractual notion of WTP.


Contingent valuation Willingness-to-pay Minimum legal WTP Discrete choice Carnivores 

JEL Classification



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alberini A, Boyle KJ, Welsh MP (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manage 45:40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop RC, Heberlein TA (1979) Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased?. Am J Agri Econ 61:926–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boman M, Bostedt G, Kriström B (1999) Obtaining welfare bounds in discrete-response valuation studies—a non-parametric approach. Land Econ 75:284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostedt G, Boman M (1996) Nonresponse in contingent valuation – reducing uncertainty in value inference. Environ Resour Econ 8:119–124Google Scholar
  5. Boyle KJ (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Carson RT (2005) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers CM, Whitehead JC (2003) A contingent valuation estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota. Environ Resour Econ 26:249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 33:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffield JW, Neher CJ (1996) Economics of wolf recovery in Yellowstone national park. In: Proceedings of Transactions of the 61st North American wildlife and natural resources conference, pp 285–292Google Scholar
  11. Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2003) Attitudes of hunters, locals and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol Conserv 111:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haab TC, McConnell KE (1997) Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manage 32:251–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison GW, Kriström B (1995) On the interpretation of responses in contingent valuation surveys. In: Johansson P-O, Mäler K-G (eds) Current issues in environmental economics. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  14. Heberlein TA, Ericsson G (2005) Ties to the countryside: accounting for urbanites attitudes towards hunting wolves and wildlife. Hum Dimens Wildlife 10:213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jorgensen BS, Wilson M, Heberlein TA (2001) Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmentl improvements at two levels of scope. Ecol Econ 36:133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kellert SR (1985) Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and the coyote. Biol Conserv 31:167–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79:1013–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li C-Z, Mattsson L (1995) Discrete-choice under preference uncertainty—an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 28:256–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martinez-Espineira R (2006) A box-cox double-hurdle model of wildlife valuation: the citizen’s perspective. Ecol Econ 58:192–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources For the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. NOAA (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58:4602–4614Google Scholar
  22. Ready RC, Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J Environ Econ Manage 29:181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sharpe VA, Norton B, Donnelley S (2001) Wolves and human communities. Biology, politics, and ethics. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Swedish EPA (2006) Carnivore population estimates published on Accessed 2007-02-07Google Scholar
  25. Vossler CA, Poe GL, Welsh MP, Ethier RG (2004) Bid design effects in multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 29:401–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang H (1997) Treatment of Don’t-Know responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manage 32:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manage 36:170–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams CK, Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2002) A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction. Wildlife Soc Bull 30:575–584Google Scholar
  29. Wilson M (1997) The wolf in Yellowstone: science, symbol or politics? Deconstructing the conflict between environmentalists and wise use. Soc Nat Resour 10:453–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Göran Bostedt
    • 1
  • Göran Ericsson
    • 2
  • Jonas Kindberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forest EconomicsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Animal EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations