Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judging Quality

  • Chapter
Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies

Part of the book series: The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources ((ENGO,volume 8))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams, 1994, “Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Models for Valuing Environmental Amenities,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26: 271-292.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini, A., K.J. Boyle and M.P. Welsh, 1997, “Using Multiple Bounded Questions to Incorporate Preference Uncertainty in Nonmarket Valuation,” in W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfers in Natural Resource Planning 9th Interim Report, University of Nevada, Reno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberini, A., M. Cropper, A. Krupnick and N.B. Simon, 2004, “Does the Value of a Statistical Life Vary With Age and Health Status? Evidence from the US and Canada,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48: 769-792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K.J, R. Solow, R.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schman, 1993, “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation,” Federal Register 58: 4601-4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K.J. and A.C. Fisher, 1974, “Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 88: 312-319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bockstael, N.E., A.M. Freeman, R.J. Kopp, P.R. Portney and V.K. Smith, 2000, “On Measuring Economic Values for Nature,” Environmental Science and Technology, 34:(8), 1384-89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P. C., W.L. Adamowicz, J. Swait, M. Williams and J. Louviere, 1996, “A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods in Environmental Valuation,” Ecological Economics, 18, 243-253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K., M. Morrison and L. Taylor, 2004, “Why Value Estimates Generated Using Choice Modeling Exceed Contingent Valuation: Further Experimental Evidence,” Presented at the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference, Melbourne, 11-13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T.A., 1988, “A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-Market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15:(3), 355-79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T.A., 1992, “Nonuser Resource Values,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74: 1133-1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T.A. and J.R. DeShazo, 2004, “Valuing Health-risk Reductions: Six Years, Lost Life-Years, and Latency,” mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T.A., G.L. Poe, R.G. Ethier and W.D. Schulze, 2002, “Alternative Non-Market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44: 391-425.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T.A., W.D. Shaw and S.R. Ragland, 1999, “Nonresponse Bias in Mail Survey Data: Salience vs. Endogenous Survey Complexity,” in Valuing Recreation and the Environment, Herriges, J.A. and C.L. Kling , (Eds.), 217-251.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Southern California,” Report to the Natural Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Natural Resource Damage Assessment Inc, La Jolla; California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R.T., W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, J.A. Krosnick, R.C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.A. Ruud, V.K. Smith, 1997, “Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation,” Land Economics, 73:(2), 151-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R.T., R.C. Mitchell, W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, S. Presser, and P.A. Ruud, 1992, “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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, D.L., 1999, “American Living Standards: Evidence from Recreational Expenditures,” NBER Working Paper No. 7148.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeShazo, J.R. and T.A. Cameron, 2004a, “The Effect of Current Health Status on Willingness to Pay for Morbidity and Mortality Risk Reductions,” Unpublished Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeShazo, J. R. and T.A. Cameron, 2004b, “Mortality in a Morbidity Risk Reduction: An Empirical Life Cycle Model of Demand with Two Types of Age Effects,” Unpublished Paper, UCLA Department of Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P., 1996, “Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30:(3): 337-347.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Faith, R.L. and R.D. Tollison, 1981, “Contractual Exchange and the Timing of Payment,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1: 325-342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A.C., 2000, “Investment under Uncertainty and Option Value in Environmental Economics,” Resource and Energy Economics, 22: 197-204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1952, “A Diagrammatic Analysis of Complementarity,” Southern Economic Journal, 19: 1-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt, J.K. and J.D. Graham, 1999, “Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 18:(1): 33-62.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W.M., 1991, “Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?” American Economic Review, 81:(3): 635-647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W.M., 1998, “Three Approaches to Defining “Existence” or Nonuse Values Under Certainty,” Working paper, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W.M., 1999, “The Economic Theory of WTP and WTA,” in Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries,Bateman, I.J. and K.G. Wells, (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G.W., 2000, “Contingent Valuation Meets the Experts: A Critique of the NOAA Panel Report, Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F.A., 1943, “The Geometrical Representation of Complementarity,” Review of Economic Studies, 10:(2), 122-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J.J., 2001, “Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy: Nobel Lecture,” Journal of Political Economy, 109: 673-748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herriges, J.A. and D.J. Phaneuf, 2002, “Inducing Patterns of Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Models of Recreation Demand,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84:(4), 1076-1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J.C. and V.K. Smith, 1998, “Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods,” Land Economics, 74:(2), 186-202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J.C. and V.K. Smith, 2002, “Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods: Reply,” Land Economics, 78:(4), 617-623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbens, G.W. and T. Lancaster, 1994, “Combining Micro and Macro Data in Microeconometric Models,” Review of Economic Studies, 61: 655-680.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F.R., K.E. Mathews and M.F. Bingham, 2000, “Evaluating Welfare-Theoretic Consistency in Multiple-Response Stated-Preference Surveys,” TER Working Paper, Triangle Economic Research, Durham, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, R.J. and V.K. Smith, 1997, “Constructing Measures of Economic Value,” in Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods,R.J. Kopp, W.W. Pommerehne and N. Schwartz, (Eds.), Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupnick, A.J., V. Adamowicz, D. Dupont, H.S. Banzhaf and M. Batz, 2004, “Preference Tradeoffs for Drinking Water Risks: Diarrhea of Death,” Presented at the Allied Social Science Associations, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupnick, A.J., A. Alberini, M. Cropper, N. Simon, B. O’Brien, R. Goeree and M. Heintzelman, 2002, “Age, Health and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Ontario Residents,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24:(2), 161-86.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Krutilla, J.V., 1961, “Welfare Aspects of Benefit-Cost Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy, 69: 226-235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D.F. and S.T.Lee, 2003, “From Ratings to Rankings: The Econometric Analysis of Stated Preference Ratings Data,” Unpublished Working Paper, University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, C. and V.K. Smith, 2002, “Trade-off at the Trough: TMDLs and the Evolving Status of US Water Quality Policy,” Recent Advances in Environmental Economics, List, J.A. and A. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, C., G. Van Houtven, F.R. Johnson, D. Crawford-Brown and Z. Pekar, 2004, “Behavioral Reactions to Ozone Alerts: What Do They Tell Us About Willingness-to-pay for Children’s Health?” Presented at the Allied Social Science Associations, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, K.E., 1990, “Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 18: 19-34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmquist, R.B., 2005, “Weak Complementarity, Path Independence, and the Intuition of the Willig Condition,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49: 103-115.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A., 1974a, “Complementarity: an Essay on the 40th Anniversary of the Hicks-Allen Revolution in Demand Theory,” Journal of Economic Literature, 12: 1255-89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A., 1974b, “Remembrances of Frisch,” European Economic Review,5: 7-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K., 1992, “Arbitrary Values, Good Causes, and Premature Verdicts: Comment,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22: 71-89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K., 1996, “Can Contingent Valuation Distinguish Economic Values for Different Public Goods?” Land Economics, 72:(2), 139-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K., 1997, “Pricing What is Priceless: A Status Report on Non-Market Valuation of Environmental Resources,” in The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1997/1998, H. Folmer and T. Tietenberg, Eds., Cheltenham,UK: Edward Elgar, 156-204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K., 2004, “Fifty Years of Contingent Valuation,” in The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2004/2005, T. Tietenberg and H. Folmer, (Eds.), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K. and H.S. Banzhaf, 2004a, “Quality Adjusted Prices Indexes and the Willig Condition,” Unpublished Working CEnRep Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K. and H.S. Banzhaf, 2004b, “A Diagrammatic Exposition of Weak Complementarity and the Willig Condition, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86: 455-66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K. and W.H. Desvousges, 1990, “Risk Communication and the Value of Information: Radon as a Case Study,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72: 137-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K., W.H. Desvousges, A. Fisher and F.R. Johnson, 1988, “Learning About Radon’s Risk,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1: 233-58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K., M.F. Evans, H.S. Banzhaf, and C. Poulos, 2004, “Rehabilitating Weak Substitution,” Unpublished CEnREP Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K. and C. Mansfield, 1998, “Buying Time: Real and Contingent Offers,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36: 209-224.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K. and L.L. Osborne, 1996, “Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a ‘Scope’ Test? A Meta-analysis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31: 287-301.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K. and S.K. Pattanayak, 2002, “Is Meta-Analysis a Noah’s Ark for Nonmarket Valuation?” Environmental and Resource Economics, 22: 271-296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K. and G. Van Houtven, 2004, “Recovering Hicksian Consumer Surplus Within a Collective Model: Hausman’s Method for the Household,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 28: 153-167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K., Z. Zhang and R.B. Palmquist, 1997, “Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-market Values,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 10: 223-47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1991, “Loss Aversion and Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106: 1039-1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Haefen, R.H., 2003, “Incorporating Observed Choice in the Construction of Welfare Measures From Random Utility Models,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,45: 145-165.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, M.P., R.C. Bishop, M.L. Phillips and R.M. Baumgartner, 1995, GCES Non-use Value Study. Final Report, Prepared by Hagler Bailly Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, M.P. and G.L. Poe, 1998, “Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,36: 170-185.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Willig, R.D., 1978, “Incremental Consumer’s Surplus and Hedonic Price Adjustment,” Journal of Economic Theory,17: 227-53.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe Arizona, U.S.A

    V. Kerry Smith

  2. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C, U.S.A

    V. Kerry Smith

Authors
  1. V. Kerry Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Arlington, Virginia, USA

    Barbara J. Kanninen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, V.K. (2006). Judging Quality. In: Kanninen, B.J. (eds) Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5313-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation