Nonmarket Valuation and the Estimation of Damages from Global Warming

Abstract

This paper is concerned with nonmarket valuation in the context of global warming. First, concerning the impact of global warming: what are the prospects for the inclusion of nonmarket values in estimates of the damages of warming? The second question relates to the role of the Principles and Guidelines as the supporting document for water resource projects. Are tools for nonmarket valuation, as found in the Principles and Guidelines satisfactory for water resource project evaluation with a changing climate?

The potential effects of climate change are so numerous and subtle that it would be prohibitively costly to measure them all. Thus a comprehensive program for including nonmarket damages as part of the costs of global warming seems ill-advised. Where specific concerns arise, researchers may learn from small scale studies. Many of the damages of global warming are diminished by the ability of humans to adapt at small costs, especially the nonuse component of nonmarket values. When the question concerns minor water resource projects, the gains from including extra effects induced by global warming seem to be small compared with the costs.

The Principles and Guidelines does not reflect current practices in benefit estimation. However, it is not clear that this is a serious problem, because most practitioners continue to revise their understanding of valuation methods. If the Principles and Guidelines were to be revised, it would make sense to provide more current guidelines for all of the behavioral models and contingent valuation. Revisions of the Principles and Guidelines should not do anything special for anthropocentrically induced climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H.: 1993, ‘Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation’, U.S. Department of Commerce.

  2. Bartik, T.: 1988, ‘Evaluation the Benefits of Non-marginal Reductions in Pollution Using Information on Defensive Expenditures’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15, 111–127.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bockstael, N. E., McConnell, K. E., and Strand, I. E.; 1991, ‘Recreation Benefits,’ in Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, (Braden and Kolstad, eds.), North Holland Press, 227–270.

  4. Braden, J. B., and Kolstad, C. (eds.): 1991, Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. New York: North Holland Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., Krosnick, J. A., Mitchell, R. C., Presser, S., Ruud, P. A., and Smith, V. K.: 1994, ‘Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB Contamination in the Southern California Bight’, NOAA Contract No. DGNC-1-00007.

  6. Carson, R., Flores, N., Martin, K., and Wright, J.: 1996, ‘Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference’, Land Economics 72, 80–99.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cline, W.: 1992, The Economics of Global Warming. Institute for International Economics: Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cummings, R., Brookshire, D., and Schulze, W.: 1986, Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of Contingent Valuation. Rowman and Allanheld: Totowa, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Desvousges, W. H., et al.: 1993, ‘Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability’, in J. Hausman, ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland Press. 91–164.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Diamond, P., and Hausman, J.: 1994, ‘Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fankhauser, S.: 1995, Valuing Climate Change. Earthscan Publications Ltd.: London.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Freeman, A. M., III.: 1993, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Practice. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hanemann, W. M.: 1994, ‘Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hartwick, J.: 1990, ‘Natural Resources, National Accounting and Economic Depreciation’, Journal of Public Economics 43, 291–304.

    Google Scholar 

  15. IPCC.: 1995. ‘Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impact and Adaptation.’

  16. Loomis, J., and Crespi, J.: October 1994, ‘Analytical Approach and First Phase Estimates for Selected Recreation Activities on the Effects of Climate Change on Recreation Use and Benefits’. Unpublished report.

  17. Madanat, S., and Humplick, F.: 1993, ‘A Model of Household Choice of Water Supply Systems in Developing Countries’, Water Resources Research 29, 1353–1358.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McConnell, K. E., Strand, I. E., and Bockstael, N. E.: 1990, ‘Habit Formation and the Demand for Recreation’, in Advances in Applied Micro-economics, Vol. 5, V. K. Smith (ed.), JAI Press Inc., 217–235.

  19. Mendelsohn, R.: December 1994, ‘Measuring the Impacts of Climate on Market and Nonmarket Recreation Values’. Unpublished.

  20. Mendelsohn, R., and Shaw, D.: July 1994, ‘Measuring Mortality Effects from Global Warming’, Working Paper.

  21. Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus, W., and Shaw, D.: 1994, ‘The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis’, American Economic Review 84, 753–771.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mitchell, R. C., and Carson, R.: 1989, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Morey, E., Shaw, D., and Rowe, R.: 1991, ‘A Discrete Choice Model of Recreational Participation, Site Choice and Activity Valuation When Complete Trip Data Are Not Available’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20, 181–201.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nordhaus, W.: 1991, ‘To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect’, Economic Journal 101, 920–937.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nordhaus, W.: 1994. Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change. MIT Press.

  26. Palmquist, R.: 1991. “Hedonic methods” in Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality (Braden and Kolstad, eds.), North Holland Press.

  27. Schelling, T.: 1992, ‘Some Economics of Global Warming’, American Economic Review 82, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, V. K, and Wang, J. Chin. 1993, ‘Hedonic Models and Air Pollution: Twenty-Five Years and Counting’, Environmental and Resource Economic 3, 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Smith, V. K., and Desvousges, W.: 1986, ‘Averting Behavior: Does It Exist?’ Economic Letters 20, 291–296.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Smith, V. K.: 1991, ‘Household Production Methods’, in Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality (Braden and Kolstad, eds.), North Holland Press.

  31. Ward, F., and Loomis, J.: 1986, ‘The Travel Cost Model as an Environmental Assessment Tool: A Review of the Literature,’ Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 11, 164–178.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Weitzman, M.: 1976, ‘On the Welfare Significance of National Product in a Dynamic Economy’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 90, 156–162.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McConnell, K. Nonmarket Valuation and the Estimation of Damages from Global Warming. Climatic Change 37, 121–139 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005368403527

Download citation

Keywords

  • Climate Change
  • Global Warming
  • Minor Water
  • Current Guideline
  • Behavioral Model