Advertisement

The Expressed Preference Approach

  • Magnus Johannesson
Part of the Developments in Health Economics and Public Policy book series (HEPP, volume 4)

Abstract

Expressed preference means that the data about WTP are not based on actual decisions, but on the preferences of individuals as expressed in hypothetical surveys. The method of measuring WTP or WTS in surveys is usually called the contingent valuation (CV) method.

Keywords

Contingent Valuation Hypothetical Bias Payment Vehicle Natural Resource Damage Assessment Contingent Valuation Question 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acton JP. Evaluating public programs to save lives: the case of heart attacks. Santa Monica: RAND Report R-950- RC, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. Amemiya T. Qualitative response models: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 1981; 19: 1483–1536.Google Scholar
  3. Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Medical Care 1985; 23: 881–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop RC, Heberlein JA Measuring values of extra market goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1979; 61: 926–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohm P. Estimating demand for public goods: an experiment European Economic Review 1972; 3: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowker JM, Stoll JR Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1988; 70: 372–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyle KJ, Bishop RC. Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: a comparison of techniques. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1988; 70: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyle KJ, Bishop RC, Welsh MP. Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Economics 1985; 61: 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyle KJ, Welsh MP, Bishop RC. Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: comment Land Economics 1988; 64: 94–98.Google Scholar
  10. Brookshire DS, d’Arge RC, Schulze WD, Thayer MA. Experiments in valuing public goods. In: Smith VK (Ed.). Advances in applied microeconomics. Vol 1. Connecticut: JAI Press Inc, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. Brookshire DS, Ives BC, Schulze WD. The valuation of aesthetic preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1976; 3: 325–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brookshire DS, Randall A, Stoll JR Valuing increments and decrements of natural resource service flows. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1980; 62: 478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron TA A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1988;13:255–268.Google Scholar
  14. Carson RT. Constructed markets. In Braden JB, Kolstad CD (Eds.). Measuring the demand for environmental quality. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. Carson RT, Wright J, Alberini A, Flores N. A bibliography of contingent valuation studies and papers. La Jolla CA: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. Cicchetti CJ, Smith VK Congestion, quality deterioration, and optimal use: wilderness recreation in the Spanish Peaks primitive area. Social Science Research 1973; 2: 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cronin FJ. Valuing nonmarket goods through contingent markets. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington D.C., 1982.Google Scholar
  18. Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD (Eds.). Valuing environmental goods. New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
  19. Darling AH. Measuring benefits generated by urban water parks. Land Economics 1973; 49: 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daubed JT, Young RA Recreational demands for maintaining instream flows: a contingent valuation approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1981; 63: 666–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis RK. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal 1963; 3: 239–249.Google Scholar
  22. Diamond PA, Hausman JA. On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values. In Hausman JA (Ed). Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. New York: North-Holland, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. Donaldson C. Willingness to pay for publicly provided goods: a possible measure of benefit? Journal of Health Economics 1990; 9: 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duffield JW, Patterson DA Field testing existence values: an instream flow trust fund for Montana rivers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association, New Orleans, 1991.Google Scholar
  25. Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, Boyle KJ, Hudson SP, Wilson KN. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. In Hausman JA (Ed.). Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. New York: North-Holland, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. Diamond PA, Hausman JA, Leonard GK, Denning MA Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. In Hausman JA (Ed.). Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. New York: North-Holland, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. Evans WN, Viscusi WK Estimation of state dependent utility functions using survey data Review of Economics and Statistics 1991; 73: 94–104.Google Scholar
  28. Fisher A, Chestnut LG, Violette DM. The value of reducing risks of death: a note on new evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1989; 8: 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenley DA, Walsh AG, Young RA Option value: empirical evidence from a case study of recreation and water quality. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1981; 95: 657–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hammack B, Brown GM Jr. Waterfowl and wetlands: toward bioeconomic analysis. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, 1974.Google Scholar
  31. Hanemann MW. A Methodological and Empirical Study of the Recreation Benefits from Water Quality Improvement. PhD. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1978.Google Scholar
  32. Hanemann MW. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984; 66: 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanemann MW. Willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept: How much do they differ? American Economic Review 1991; 81: 635–647.Google Scholar
  34. Hanemann MW, Loomis JB, Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1991; 73: 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Borgquist L. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: results of a Swedish pilot study. Journal of Health Economics 1991; 10: 461–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johannesson M, Johansson P-O, Kriström B, Gerdtham U-G. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: further results. Journal of Health Economics 1993; 12: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johansson P-O, Kriström B, Maier KG. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: comment American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1989; 71: 1054–1056.Google Scholar
  38. Jones-Lee MW. The value of life: an economic analysis. London: Martin Robertson, 1976.Google Scholar
  39. Kahnemann D Comments. In Cummins RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD (Eds.). Valuing environmental goods. Totowa New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
  40. Kahmemann D, Knetsch JL Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992; 22: 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knetsch JL Sinden JA. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1984; 98: 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kristrom B. Discrete and continuous valuation questions; do they give different answers? Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Umeâ, Department of Forest Economics, Working paper 90, 1989.Google Scholar
  43. Kriström B. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Economics 1990; 66: 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Milon JW. Contingent valuation experiments for strategic behavior. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1989; 17: 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Minkin S. Optimal designs for binary data Journal of the American Statistical Association 1987; 82: 1098–1103.Google Scholar
  46. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
  47. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993; 58: 4602–4614.Google Scholar
  48. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Natural resource damage assessments: proposed rules. Federal Register 1994; 59: 1062–1191.Google Scholar
  49. Nyquist H. Optimal designs of discrete response experiments in contingent valuation studies. Review of Economics and Statistics 1992; 74: 559–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Randall A, Gninewald O, Pagoulatos A, Ausness R, Johnson S. Reclaiming coal surface mines in central Appalachia: a case study of the benefits and costs. Land Economics 1978; 54: 472–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Randall A, Ives BC, Eastman C. Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1974; 1: 132–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reardon G, Pathak DS. Assessment of a contingent valuation technique with utility estimation models. Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Economics 1989; 1: 68–89.Google Scholar
  53. Reardon G, Pathak DS. Segmenting the antihistamine market: an investigation of consumer preferences. Journal of Health Care Marketing 1990; 10: 23–33.Google Scholar
  54. Ricker RG. Economic Costs of Air Pollution. New York: Praeger, 1967.Google Scholar
  55. Rowe RD, d’Arge RC, Brookshire DS. An experiment on the economic value of visibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1980; 7: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheer BA, Babb EM. Pricing public goods: an experiment with two proposed pricing systems. Public Choice 1975; 23: 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schulze WD, Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Thayer MA, Whitworth R, Rahmatian M. Methods development in measuring benefits of environmental improvements: experimental approaches to valuing environmental commodities. Vol 2. Draft manuscript of a report to the Office of Policy Analysis and Resource Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., 1983.Google Scholar
  58. Sellar CJ, Chaves JP, Stoll JR Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: a comparison of nonmarket techniques. Land Economics 1985; 61: 156–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sellar CJ, Chavas JP, Stoll JR Specification of the logic model: the case of valuation of nonmarket goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1986; 13: 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith VK, Desvousges WH. An empirical analysis of the economic value of risk changes. Journal of Political Economy 1987; 95: 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith VL. The principle of unanimity and voluntary consent in social choice. Journal of Political Economy 1977; 85: 1125–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith VL (Ed.). Research in Experimental Economics. Vol 1. Connecticut: JAI Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  63. Sorg C, Brookshire DS. Valuing increments and decrements of wildlife resources: further evidence. Report to the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1984.Google Scholar
  64. Thayer MA. Contingent valuation techniques for assessing environmental impacts: further evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1981; 8: 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson MS. Willingness to pay and accept risks to cure chronic disease. American Journal of Public Health 1986; 76: 392–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thompson MS, Read JL, Liang M. Feasibility of willingness to pay measurement in chronic arthritis. Medical Decision Making 1984; 4: 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Viscusi WK The value of risks to life and health. Journal of Economic Literature 1993; 31: 1912–1946.Google Scholar
  68. Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. An investigation of the rationality of consumer valuations of multiple health risks. Rand Journal of Economics 1987; 18: 465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar tradeoffs for chronic bronchitis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1991; 21: 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magnus Johannesson
    • 1
  1. 1.Stockholm School of EconomicsSweden

Personalised recommendations