Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 257–286 | Cite as

Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

  • Richard T. Carson
  • Robert C. Mitchell
  • Michael Hanemann
  • Raymond J. Kopp
  • Stanley Presser
  • Paul A. Ruud
Article

Abstract

We report on the results of a large-scale contingent valuation (CV) study conducted after the Exxon Valdez oil spill to assess the harm caused by it. Among the issues considered are the design features of the CV survey, its administration to a national sample of U.S. households, estimation of household willingness to pay to prevent another Exxon Valdez type oil spill, and issues related to reliability and validity of the estimates obtained. Events influenced by the study's release are also briefly discussed.

natural resource damage assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberini, Anna and Richard T. Carson (1993), ‘Choice of Thresholds for Efficient Binary Discrete Choice Estimation’. Discussion Paper 90-34R, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Arrow, Kenneth, Robert Solow, Paul R. Portney, Edward E. Leamer, Roy Radner and Howard Schuman (1993), ‘Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation’, Federal Register 58, 4601–4614.Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, Ian, Richard T. Carson, Brett Day, W. Michael Hanemann, Nick Hanley, Tannis Hett, Michael Jones-Lee, Graham Loomes, Susana Mourato, Ece Özdemiroglu, David Pearce, Robert Sugden and John Swanson (2002), Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, Richard C. and Thomas A. Heberlein (1979), ‘Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 926–930.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, Richard C. and Michael P. Welsh (1992), ‘Existence Values in Benefit-Cost Analysis and Damage Assessment’, Land Economics 68, 405–417.Google Scholar
  7. Carson, Richard 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 Valuation Methods. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Carson, Richard T. (forthcoming), Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. Carson, Richad T., Michael B. Conaway, W. Michael Hanemann, Jon A. Krosnick, Robert Cameron Mitchell and Stanley Presser), Valuing Oil Spill Prevention: A Case Study of California's Central Coast. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  10. Carson, Richard T., Nicholas E. Flores and W. Michael Hanemann (1998), ‘Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 314–323.Google Scholar
  11. Carson, Richard T., Nicholas E. Flores and Norman F. Meade (2001), ‘Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence’, Environmental and Resource Economics 19, 173–210.Google Scholar
  12. Carson, Richard T., Nicholas E. Flores and Robert 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 US, EC, and Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Carson, Richard T., W. Michael Hanemann, Raymond J. Kopp, Jon A. Krosnick, Robert C. Mitchell, Stanley Presser, Paul A. Ruud and V. Kerry Smith (1997), ‘Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation’, Land Economics 73, 151–163.Google Scholar
  15. Carson, Richard T. and Robert Cameron Mitchell (1995), ‘Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 155–173.Google Scholar
  16. Carson, Richard T. and Dan Steinberg (1990), ‘Experimental Design for Discrete Choice Voter Preference Surveys’, in 1989 Proceeding of the Survey Methodology Section of the American Statistical Association. Washington: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  17. Carson, Richard T., Leanne Wilks and David Imber (1994), ‘Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone’, Oxford Economic Papers 46(S), 727–749.Google Scholar
  18. Chapple, Clive (2000), ‘The 1990 Oil Pollution Act: Consequences for the Environment’, paper presented at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists summer workshop, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Diamond, Peter and Jerry A. Hausman (1994), ‘Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 45–64.Google Scholar
  20. Fararo, Kim (1992), ‘Near Miss in the Narrows Oil-Laden Tanker's Tugboat Escort Puts Itself in a Hard Spot Between Middle Rock and a New Disaster’, Anchorage Daily News, November 22, A1.Google Scholar
  21. Flores, Nicholas E. and Jennifer Thatcher (2002), ‘Money Who Needs It?: Natural Resource Damage Assessment’, Contemporary Economics Policy 20, 171–178.Google Scholar
  22. Haab, Timothy C. and Kenneth E. McConnell (1997), ‘Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32, 251–270.Google Scholar
  23. Hanemann, W. Michael (1991), ‘Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?’ American Economic Review 81, 635–647.Google Scholar
  24. Hanemann, W. Michael (1994), ‘Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 19–43.Google Scholar
  25. Hanemann (1999), ‘Neo-Classical Economic Theory and Contingent Valuation’, in I.J. Bateman and K.G. Willis (eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EC, and Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hanemann, W. Michael, John Loomis and Barbara Kanninen (1991), ‘Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73, 1255–1263.Google Scholar
  27. Hausman, Jerry A. (ed.) (1993), Contingent valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  28. Hoehn, John P. and Alan Randall (1989), ‘Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test’, American Economic Review 79, 544–551.Google Scholar
  29. Kahneman, Daniel and Jack L. Knetsch (1992), ‘Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 57–70.Google Scholar
  30. Kopp, Raymond J., Paul R. Portney and V. Kerry Smith (1990), ‘The Economics of Natural Resource Damages After Ohio v. U.S. Department of the Interior’, Environmental Law Reporter 20(4), 10127–10131.Google Scholar
  31. Kristrom, Bengt (1997), ‘Spike Models in Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 1013–1023.Google Scholar
  32. Krueger, Richard A. (1988), Focus groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Louviere, Jordan J., David A. Hensher and Joffre D. Swait (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. McConnell, Kenneth E. (1993), ‘Indirect Methods for Assessing Natural Resource Damages Under CERCLA’, in R.J. Kopp and V.K. Smith (eds.), Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Washington: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  35. Mitchell, Robert Cameron (2002), ‘On Designing Constructed Markets in Valuation Surveys’, Environmental and Resource Economics 22, 297–321.Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell, Robert Cameron and Richard T. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  37. Mitchell, Robert Cameron (1995), ‘Current Issues in the Design, Administration, and Analysis of Contingent Valuation Surveys’, in P.O. Johansson, B. Kristrom and K.G. Mäler (eds.), Current Issues in Environmental Economics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Moore, William H. (1994), ‘The Grounding of the Exxon Valdez: An Examination of the Human and Organizational Factors’, Marine Technology 31, 41–51.Google Scholar
  39. Morgan, David L. (ed.) (1993), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. National Transportation Safety Board (1990), Grounding of the U.S. Tankership Exxon Valdez on Bligh Reef, Prince William Sound Near Valdez Alaska, PB90-916405. Washington: National Safety Transportation Board.Google Scholar
  41. Nelson, Wayne (1982), Applied Life Analysis. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Portney, Paul R. (1994), ‘The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 3–17.Google Scholar
  43. Sudman, Seymour (1976), Applied Sampling. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  44. Turnbull, Bruce W. (1976), ‘The Empirical Distribution Function with Arbitrarily Grouped, Censored and Truncated Data’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 38, 290–295.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard T. Carson
    • 1
  • Robert C. Mitchell
    • 2
  • Michael Hanemann
    • 3
  • Raymond J. Kopp
    • 4
  • Stanley Presser
    • 5
  • Paul A. Ruud
    • 3
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Clark UniversityUSA
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.Resources for the FutureUSA
  5. 5.University of MarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations