Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 173–210

Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence

  • Richard T. Carson
  • Nicholas E. Flores
  • Norman F. Meade
Article

Abstract

Contingent valuation (CV) has become one of the most widely usednon-market valuation techniques. CV's prominence is due to itsflexibility and ability to estimate total value, includingpassive use value. Its use and the inclusion of passive use valuein benefit-cost analyses and environmental litigation are thesubject of a contentious debate. This paper discusses key areasof the debate over CV and the validity of passive use value. Weconclude that many of the alleged problems with CV can beresolved by careful study design and implementation. We furtherconclude that claims that empirical CV findings are theoreticallyinconsistent are not generally supported by the literature. Thedebate over CV, however, has clarified several key issues relatedto nonmarket valuation and can provide useful guidance both to CVpractitioners and the users of CV results.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Adamowicz, W. L., P. C. Boxall, J. J. Louviere and J. Swait (1999), ‘Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities’, in I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis, eds., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the USA, EC, and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 460–479.Google Scholar
  2. Alberini, A. (1995), ‘Efficiency vs. Bias ofWillingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 169–180.Google Scholar
  3. Alberini, A., B. Kanninen and R. T. Carson (1997), ‘Modeling Response Incentives in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data’, Land Economics 73, 309–324.Google Scholar
  4. Andreoni, J. (1988), ‘Why Free Ride? Strategies and Learning in Public Goods Experiments’, Journal of Public Economics 37, 291–304.Google Scholar
  5. Andreoni, J. (1989), ‘Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence’, Journal of Political Economy 97, 1447–1458.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, K. (1958), ‘Utilities, Attitudes, Choices: A Review Note’, Econometrica 26, 1–23.Google Scholar
  7. Arrow, K. and E. E. Leamer (1997), ‘Comment No. 87,’ submitted to NOAA in response to Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (59 FR 1062, January 7, 1994).Google Scholar
  8. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schuman (1993), ‘Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation’, Federal Register 58, 4601–4614.Google Scholar
  9. Bateman, I., A. Munro, B. Rhodes, C. Starmer and R. Sugden (1997), ‘Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation’, Economic Journal 107, 322–332.Google Scholar
  10. Bateman, I. J. and I. H. Langford (1997), ‘Non-Users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method’, Regional Studies 31, 571–582.Google Scholar
  11. Beattie, J., J. Covey, P. Dolan, L. Hopkins, M. Jones-Lee, N. Pidgeon, A. Robinson and A. Spencer (1998), ‘On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part I — Caveat Investigator’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, 5–25.Google Scholar
  12. Becker, G. (1974), ‘A Theory of Social Interactions’, Journal of Political Economy 82, 1095–1117.Google Scholar
  13. Bishop, R. C. and T. A. Heberlein (1979), ‘Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 926–930.Google Scholar
  14. Blamey, R. K., J. W. Bennett and M. D. Morrison (1999), ‘Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys’, Land Economics 75, 126–141.Google Scholar
  15. Blinder, A. S. (1991), ‘Why are Prices Sticky: Preliminary Results from an Interview Study’, American Economic Review 81, 89–100.Google Scholar
  16. Borcherding, T. and R. Deacon (1972), ‘The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments’, American Economic Review 62, 842–853.Google Scholar
  17. Brookshire, D. S., B. C. Ives and W. D. Schulze (1976), ‘The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3, 325–346.Google Scholar
  18. Brouwer, R., I. H. Langford, I. J. Bateman and R. K. Turner (1999), ‘A Meta-Analysis of Wetland Contingent Valuation Studies’, Regional Environmental Change 1, 47–57.Google Scholar
  19. Camerer, C. F. and R. M. Hogarth (1999), ‘The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 7–42.Google Scholar
  20. Cameron, T. A. and J. Quiggin (1994), ‘Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a “Dichotomous Choice with Follow-up” Questionnaire’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27, 218–234.Google Scholar
  21. Carson, R. T. (1991), ‘Constructed Markets’, in J. B. Braden and C. D. Kolstad, eds., Measuring the Demand for Environmental Commodities. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 121–163.Google Scholar
  22. Carson, R. T. (1997), ‘Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope’, in R. J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene and N. Schwartz, eds., Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent ValuationMethods. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 127–163.Google Scholar
  23. Carson, R. T. and N. E. Flores (1996), ‘Another Look at “Does Contingent ValuationMeasure Preferences?: Experimental Evidence” How Compelling is the Evidence’, Discussion Paper 96-31, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  24. Carson, R. T., N. Flores and M. Hanemann (1998), ‘Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 314–323.Google Scholar
  25. Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, K. M. Martin and J. L. Wright (1996), ‘Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods’, Land Economics 72, 80–99.Google Scholar
  26. Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores and R. C. Mitchell (1999), ‘The Theory and Measurement of Passive Use Value’, in I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis, eds., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the USA, EC, and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–130.Google Scholar
  27. Carson, R. T., T. Groves and M. J. Machina (1997), ‘Stated Preference Questions: Context and Optimal Response’, paper presented at the National Science Foundation Preference Elicitation Symposium, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  28. Carson, R. T., T. Groves and M. Machina (1999), ‘Incentive and Informational Properties of Preferences Questions’, Plenary Address, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  29. Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud and V. K. Smith (1997), ‘Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation’, Land Economics 73, 151–161.Google Scholar
  30. Carson, R. T., W.M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud and V. K. Smith (1994), Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB Contamination in the Southern California Bight: Volumes 1 & 2. Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Google Scholar
  31. Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann and R. C. Mitchell (1987), ‘The Use of Simulated Political Markets to Value Public Goods’, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, Discussion Paper 87-7.Google Scholar
  32. Carson, R. T. and Y. Jeon (2000), ‘On Overcoming Informational Deficiencies in Estimating Willingness to Pay Distributions’, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  33. Carson, R. T., R. C. Mitchell, W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, S. Presser and Paul A. Ruud. A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, November, 1992.Google Scholar
  34. Carson, R. T., N. F. Meade and V. K. Smith (1993), ‘Passive Use Values and Contingent Valuation: Introducing the Issues’, Choices 8(2), 4–8.Google Scholar
  35. Carson, R. T. and R. C. Mitchell (1993), ‘The Value of CleanWater: The Public'sWillingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality Water’, Water Resources Research 29, 2445–2454.Google Scholar
  36. Carson, R. T. and R. C. Mitchell (1995), ‘Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 155–173.Google Scholar
  37. Carson, R. T. and R. C. Mitchell (2000), ‘Public Preferences Toward Risk: The Case of Trihalomethanes’, in A. Alberini, D. Bjornstad and J. R. Kahn, eds., Handbook of Contingent Valuation. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  38. Carson, R. T., L. Wilks and D. Imber (1994), ‘Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone’, Oxford Economic Papers 46, 727–749.Google Scholar
  39. Carson, R. T., J. L. Wright, N. J. Carson, A. Alberini and N. E. Flores (1995), A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers. La Jolla, CA: NRDA, Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Carthy, T., S. Chilton, S., J. Convy, L. Hopkins, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, N. Pidgeon and A. Spencer (1999), ‘On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 2-The CV/SG ‘Chained’ Approach’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, 187–213.Google Scholar
  41. Champ, P. A., R. C. Bishop, T. C. Brown and D. W. McCollum (1997), ‘Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 151–162.Google Scholar
  42. Chilton, S. M. and G.W. Hutchinson (1999), ‘Some Further Implications of Incorporating the Warm Glow of Giving into Welfare Measures: A Comment on the Use of Donation Mechanisms by Champ et al.’,Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37, 202–209.Google Scholar
  43. Converse, P. E. (1974), ‘Comment: The Status of Nonattitudes’, American Political Science Review 68, 650–660.Google Scholar
  44. Cornes, R., Duality and Modern Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Corso, P. S., J. K. Hammitt and J. D. Graham (2000), ‘Evaluating the Effects of Visual Aids on Willingness to Pay for Reductions in Mortality Risks’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.Google Scholar
  46. Cummings, R. G. (1989), ‘Comments Concerning Proposed U.S. Department of Interior Type B Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules’, submitted to U.S.D.O.I. on behalf of ASARCO, Idarado Mining Company and Newmont Mining Corporation.Google Scholar
  47. Cummings, R. G., G.W. Harrison and E. E. Rutström (1995), ‘Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?’, American Economic Review 85, 260–266.Google Scholar
  48. Cummings, R. G., S. Elliott, G. W. Harrison and J. Murphy (1997), ‘Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?’, Journal of Political Economy 105, 609–621.Google Scholar
  49. Deacon, R. and P. Shapiro (1975), ‘Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda’,American Economic Review 65, 943–955.Google Scholar
  50. Deaton, A. S. (1974), ‘The Analysis of Consumer Demand in the United Kingdom’, Econometrica 42, 341–367.Google Scholar
  51. Debreu, G. (1959), Theory of Value. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Desvousges, W. H., A. R. Gable, R. W. Dunford and S. P. Hudson (1993a), ‘Contingent Valuation: The Wrong Tool for Damage Assessment’, Choices 8(2), 9–11.Google Scholar
  53. Desvousges, W. H., F. R. Johnson, R. W. Dunford, K. J. Boyle, S. P. Hudson and K. N. Wilson (1993b), ‘Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability’, in J. A. Hausman, ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 91–164.Google Scholar
  54. Diamond, P. A. (1996), ‘Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 337–347.Google Scholar
  55. Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Hausman (1993), ‘On Contingent Valuation Measurement of Nonuse Values’, in J. A. Hausman, ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
  56. Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Hausman (1994), ‘Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 45–64.Google Scholar
  57. Diamond, P. A., J. A. Hausman, G. K. Leonard and M. A. Denning (1993), ‘Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence’, in J. A. Hausman, ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 41–90.Google Scholar
  58. Ebert, U. (1998), ‘Evaluation of Nonmarket Goods: Recovering Unconditional Preferences’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 241–254.Google Scholar
  59. Farquharson, R. (1969), Theory of Voting. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Fischhoff, B., M. J. Quandrel, M. Kamlet, G. Lowenstein, R. Dawes, P. Fishbeck, S. Klepper, J. Leland and P. Stroh (1993), ‘Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Modes’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 211–234.Google Scholar
  61. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein (1980), ‘Knowing What You Want: Measuring Labile Values’, in T. S. Wallsten, ed., Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  62. Flores, N. E. (1995), ‘The Effects of Rationing and Virtual Price Elasticities’, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, Discussion Paper 95-20.Google Scholar
  63. Flores, N. E. (1999), ‘The Importance of Agenda and Willingness to Pay’, University of Colorado, Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 99-30.Google Scholar
  64. Flores, N. E. and R. T. Carson (1997), ‘The Relationship Between the Income Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 287–295.Google Scholar
  65. Freeman, A. M., III (1993), The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  66. Gibbard, A. (1973), ‘Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result’, Econometrica 41, 587–601.Google Scholar
  67. Goodstein, E. S. (1995), Economics and the Environment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  68. Green, J. R. and J. J. Laffont (1978), ‘A Sampling Approach to the Free Rider Problem’, in A. Sandmo, ed., Essays in Public Economics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  69. Groothuis, P. A., G. Van Houtven and J. C. Whitehead (1998), ‘Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a LULU: The Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility’, Public Finance Review 26, 231–249.Google Scholar
  70. Hammack, J. and G. M. Brown Jr. (1974), Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Hanemann, W. M. (1991), ‘Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?’, American Economic Review 81, 635–647.Google Scholar
  72. Hanemann, W. M. (1994), ‘Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 19–43.Google Scholar
  73. Hanemann, W. M. (1995), ‘Contingent Valuation and Economics’, in K. G. Willis and J. T. Corkindale, eds., Environmental Valuation New Perspectives. Oxon: CAB International.Google Scholar
  74. Hanemann, W. M. and B. Kanninen (1999), ‘The StatisticalAnalysis of Discrete-Response CV Data’, in I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis, eds., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the USA, EC, and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 302–441.Google Scholar
  75. Hensher, D., J. Louviere and J. Swait (1999), ‘Combining Sources of Preference Data’, Journal of Econometrics 89, 197–221.Google Scholar
  76. Harrison, G. W. (1992), ‘Valuing Public Goods with the Contingent Valuation Method: A Critique of Kahneman and Knetsch’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23, 248–257.Google Scholar
  77. Hausman, J., ed. (1993), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  78. Hicks, J. R. (1943), ‘The Four Consumer Surpluses’, Review of Economic Studies 11, 31–41.Google Scholar
  79. Hoehn, J. P. and A. Randall (1987), ‘A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14, 226–247.Google Scholar
  80. Hoehn, J. P. and A. Randall (1989), ‘Too Many Proposals Past the Benefit Cost Test’, American Economics Review 79, 544–551.Google Scholar
  81. Horowitz, J., and K. E. McConnell (1999), ‘A Review of WTA/WTP Studies’, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, working paper.Google Scholar
  82. Horowitz, J. K. and K. E. McConnell (2000), ‘Values Elicited from Open-ended Real Experiments’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 41, 221–237.Google Scholar
  83. Howe, C. W. and M. G. Smith (1994), ‘The Value of Water Supply Reliability in Urban Water Systems’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 19–30.Google Scholar
  84. Huang, J. C. and V. K. Smith (1998), ‘Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods’, Land Economics 74, 186–203.Google Scholar
  85. Johannesson, M., B. Liljas and P. O. Johansson (1998), ‘An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions’, Applied Economics 30, 643–647.Google Scholar
  86. Johansson, P. O. (1993), Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Jones-Lee, M. W., G. Loomes and P. R. Philips (1995), ‘Valuing the Prevention of Non-Fatal Road Injuries: Contingent Valuation vs. Standard Gambles’, Oxford Economic Papers 47, 676–695.Google Scholar
  88. Just, R. E., D. L. Hueth and A. Schmitz (1982), Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  89. Kahneman, D. (1986), ‘Comments’, in R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire and W. D. Schulze, eds., Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, pp. 185–194.Google Scholar
  90. Kahneman, D. and J. L. Knetsch (1992), ‘Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 57–70.Google Scholar
  91. Kahneman, D. and I. Ritov (1994), ‘Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 5–38.Google Scholar
  92. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979), ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk’, Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  93. Knetsch, J. L. (1990), ‘Environmental Policy Implications of Disparities Between Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded Measures of Values’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 227–237.Google Scholar
  94. Knetsch, J. L., R. H. Thaler and D. Kahneman (1990), ‘Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem’, Journal of Political Economy 98, 1325–1349.Google Scholar
  95. Kolstad, C. D. and R. M. Guzman (1999), ‘Information and the Divergence between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38, 66–80.Google Scholar
  96. Kopp, R. J. (1992), ‘Why Existence Value Should Be Used in Cost-Benefit Analysis’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11, 123–130.Google Scholar
  97. Krutilla, J. V. (1967), ‘Conservation Reconsidered’, American Economic Review 57, 777–786.Google Scholar
  98. Lansing, J. B. and J. N. Morgan (1971), Economic Survey Methods. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Survey Research Center.Google Scholar
  99. Lave, L. B. (1984), ‘Controlling Contradictions Among Regulations’, American Economic Review 74, 471–476.Google Scholar
  100. List, J. (2000), ‘The Incredible Disappearing Act: The Effect of Market Experience on the WTP/WTA Disparity’, paper presented at the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Meeting, Rythymnon, Greece.Google Scholar
  101. Loomis, J. B. (1989), ‘Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 76–84.Google Scholar
  102. Lupia, A. and M. D. McCubbins (1998), The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Madden, P. (1991), ‘A Generalization of Hicksian Substitutes and Complements with Application to Demand Rationing’, Econometrica 59, 1497–1508.Google Scholar
  104. McConnell, K. E., ‘Does Altruism Undermine Existence Value?’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32, 22–37.Google Scholar
  105. McConnell, K. E., I. E. Strand and S. Valdes (1998), ‘Testing Temporal Reliability and Carry-Over Effect: The Role of Correlated Responses in Test-Retest Reliability Studies’, Environmental and Resource Economics 12, 357–374.Google Scholar
  106. McFadden, D. (1994), ‘Contingent Valuation and Social Choice’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 689–708.Google Scholar
  107. McFadden, D. (1999), ‘Rationality for Economists?’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 73–105.Google Scholar
  108. Mishan, E. J. (1976), Cost-Benefit Analysis, 2nd edn. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  109. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1995), ‘Current Issues in the Design, Administration, and Analysis of Contingent Valuation Surveys’, in P. Johansson, B. Kriström and K. Mäler, eds., Current Issues in Environmental Economics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Mueller, D. C. (1989), Public Choice II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Niewijk, R. K. (1994), ‘Misleading Quantification: The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Quality’, Regulation 60(1), 60–71.Google Scholar
  113. Olsen, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Polasky, S., O. Gainutdinova and J. Kerkvliet (1996), ‘Comparing CV Responses with Voting Behavior: Open Space Survey and Referendum in Corvallis Oregon’, paper presented at annual U.S.D.A.W-133 meeting, Jekyll Island, GA.Google Scholar
  115. Portney, P. R. (1994), ‘The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 3–18.Google Scholar
  116. Poe, G. L., K. J. Boyle and J. C. Bergrsom (2000), ‘A Meta Analysis of Contingent Values for Groundwater Contamination in the United States’, paper presented at the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Rythymnon, Greece.Google Scholar
  117. Quiggin, J. (1993), ‘Existence Value and Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Third View’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12, 195–199.Google Scholar
  118. Randall, A. (1993), ‘Passive-Use Values and Contingent Valuation: Valid for Damage Assessment’, Choices 8(2), 12–15.Google Scholar
  119. Randall, A. (1998), ‘Beyond the Crucial Experiment: Mapping the Performance Characteristics of Contingent Valuation’, Resources and Energy Economics 20, 197–206.Google Scholar
  120. Randall, A. and J. P. Hoehn (1996), ‘Embedding in Market Demand Systems’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 369–380.Google Scholar
  121. Randall, A., J. P. Hoehn and G. S. Tolley (1981), ‘The Structure of Contingent Markets: Some Experimental Results’, paper presented at American Economic Association Meeting. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  122. Rollins, K. and A. Lyke (1998), ‘The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 324–344.Google Scholar
  123. Rosenberger, R., J. Loomis and R. Shrestha (1999), ‘Meta-Analysis of Outdoor Recreational Use Value Estimates: Convergent Validity Tests’, paper presented at the annual U.S.D.A. W-133 meeting, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  124. Rosenthal, D. H. and R. Nelson (1992), ‘Why Existence Value Should Not Be Used in Cost-Benefit Analysis’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11, 116–122.Google Scholar
  125. Sagoff, M. (1994), ‘Should Preferences Count?’, Land Economics 70, 127–144.Google Scholar
  126. Samuelson, P. A. (1954), ‘The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure’, Review of Economics and Statistics 36, 387–389.Google Scholar
  127. Satterwaite, M. (1975), ‘Strategy-Proofness and Arrow Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Welfare Functions’, Journal of Economic Theory 10, 187–217.Google Scholar
  128. Schelling, T. C. (1968), ‘The Life You Save May be Your Own’, in S. B. Chase, ed., Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  129. Schkade, D. A. and J.W. Payne (1993), ‘Where Do the Numbers Come From? How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions’, in J. A. Hausman, ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 271–304.Google Scholar
  130. Seip, K. and J. Strand (1992), ‘Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods in Norway: A CV Study with Real Payment’, Environmental and Resource Economics 2, 91–106.Google Scholar
  131. Smith, V. K. (1992), ‘Arbitrary Values, Good Causes, and Premature Verdicts’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 71–89.Google Scholar
  132. Smith, V. K. (2000), ‘Fifty Years of Contingent Valuation’, paper presented at the Kobe Conference on the Theory and Application of Environmental Valuation.Google Scholar
  133. Smith, V. K. and C. Mansfield (1998), ‘Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 209–224.Google Scholar
  134. Smith, V. K. and L. Osborne (1996), ‘Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a Scope Test? A Meta Analysis’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 287–301.Google Scholar
  135. Starrett, D. (1998), Foundations of Public Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  136. Sudman, S. and N. M. Bradburn (1982), Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  137. Sugden, R. (1999), ‘Alternatives to Neo-classical Theory of Choice’, in I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis, eds., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the USA, EC, and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–180.Google Scholar
  138. Sutherland, R. J. and R. G. Walsh (1985), ‘Effect of Distance on the Preservation of Water Quality’, Land Economics 61, 281–291.Google Scholar
  139. Teisl, M. F., K. J. Boyle, D. W. McCollum and S. D. Reiling (1995), ‘Test-Retest Reliability of Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77, 613–619.Google Scholar
  140. Tourangeau, R., L. J. Rips and K. Rasinski (2000), The Psychology of Survey Response. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  141. Walsh, R. G., D. M. Johnson and J.R. McKean (1992), ‘Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Demand Studies: 1968–1988’, Water Resources Research 28, 707–713.Google Scholar
  142. Willig, R. (1976), ‘Consumer's SurplusWithout Apology’, American Economic Review 66, 589–597.Google Scholar
  143. Whitehead, J. C. and T. J. Hoban (1999), ‘Testing for Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation with Time for Changes in Factors Affecting Demand’, Land Economics 75, 453–465.Google Scholar
  144. Whittington, D. (1998), ‘Administering Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries’, World Development 26, 21–30.Google Scholar
  145. Winter, S. G. (1969), ‘A Simple Remark on the Second Optimality Theorem of Welfare Economics’, Journal of Economic Theory 1, 1969.Google Scholar
  146. Weisbrod, B. A. (1964), ‘Collective-Consumption Services of Individual Consumption Goods’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 78, 471–477.Google Scholar
  147. Zhao, J. and C. L. Kling (1999), ‘Real Options and the WTP/WTA Disparity’, working paper, Department of Economics, Iowa State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard T. Carson
    • 1
  • Nicholas E. Flores
    • 1
  • Norman F. Meade
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego
  2. 2.National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationU.S. Department of CommerceUSA

Personalised recommendations