Abstract
The study seeks to determine the maximum willingness to pay (MWTP) among a random sample of Norwegians, for membership in the largest environmentalist association in Norway, Norges Naturvernforbund (NNV). The study includes three stages: (1) a contingent valuation study, testing hypothetical MWTP; (2) those whose stated MWTP is at or above the current membership fee are then asked to pay this fee; (3) those individuals who do not pay in stage 2 are interviewed, and asked to consider revising their MWTP statement. The study is seemingly the first of its kind in comparing hypothetical and actual MWTP by typing valuation of a public good (the environment) to the value of a private good (membership of the NNV). The results show a rather poor correspondence between hypothetical and actual MWTP, since only 6 out of 64 who stated that they were willing to pay the membership fee in stage 1, actually paid this voluntarily in stage 2. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed, on the basis of data from the telephone interview in stage 3, and on information gathered in stage 1. The data indicate that a substantial part of this discrepancy is due to MWTP being overstated in stage 1, but that other reasons also are important.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arndt, J. and Crane, E. (1975), ‘Response Bias, Yea-Saying, and the Double Negative’, Journal of Market Research 12, 218–220.
Bishop, R. C. and Heberlein, T. A. (1979), ‘Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 926–930.
Bishop, R. C., Heberlein, T. A., Welsh, M. P., and Baumgartner, R. A. (1984), ‘Does Contingent Valuation Work? Report on the Sandhill Study’, working paper, University of Wisconsin.
Bohm, P. (1972), ‘Estimating Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment’, European Economic Review 3, 111–130.
Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., and Schulze, W. D. (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanhead.
Hervik, A., Risnes, M., and Strand, J. (1987), ‘Implicit, Costs and Willingness to Pay for Development of Water Resources’, in Carlsen, A., ed., UNESCO Symposium on Decision Making in Water Resources Planning, proceedings, 195–202. Oslo.
Hoehn, J. R. and Randall, A. (1989), ‘Too Many Proposals pass the Benefit Cost Test’, American Economic Review 79 (3), 544–551.
Hoevenagel, R. (1990), ‘The Validity of the Contigent Valuation Method: Some Aspects on the Basis of Three Dutch Studies’, mimeo, Free University of Amsterdam. (Presented at the EAERE congress, Venice 1990.)
Hoevenagel, R. (1991), ‘A Contingent Valuation Study to Test Part-Whole Bias’, mimeo, Free University of Amsterdam. (Presented at the EAERE congress, Stockholm 1991.)
Hoevenagel, R. and Pligt, J. v.d. (1991), ‘Contingent Valuation Applications: Willingness, Intentions, But What about Behavior?’, mimeo, Free University of Amsterdam. (Presented at the EAERE congress, Stockholm 1991.)
Hylland, Aa. and Strand, J. (1983), ‘Valuation of Reduced Air Pollution in the Grenland Region’, mimeo, University of Oslo.
Kealy, M. J., Montgomery, M., and Dovido, J. F. (1990), ‘Reliability and Predictive Validity of Contingent Values: Does the Nature of the Good Matter?’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19 (3), 244–263.
Magnussen, K. (1991), ‘Valuation of Reduced Water Pollution Using the Contingent Valuation Method: Methodology and Empirical Results’, mimeo, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. (Presented at the EAERE congress, Stockholm 1991.)
Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. (1985), ‘A Contingent Valuation Estimate of National Freshwater Benefits: Technical Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’, Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. (1989), ‘Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method’, Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Navrud, S. (1991), ‘Willingness to Pay for the Preservation of Species — An Experiment with Actual Payments’, mimeo, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. (Presented at the EAERE congress, Stockholm 1991.)
Roberts, K. J., Thompson, M. E., and Pawlyk, P. W. (1985): ‘Contingent Valuation of Recreational Diving at Petroleum Rigs, Gulf of Mexico’, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114, 27–44.
Rowe, R. D., d'Arge, R. C., and Brookshire, D. S. (1980), ‘An Experiment on the Economic Value of Visibility’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7, 1–19.
Smith, V. K. and Desvousges, W. H. (1986), Measuring Water Quality Benefits, Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Strand, J. (1985), ‘The Value of a Catalytic Converter Requirement for Norwegian Automobiles: A Contingent Valuation Study’, Memorandum From Department of Economics, University of Oslo.
Strand, J. and Taraldset, A. (1991), ‘The Valuation of Environmental Goods in Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study with Multiple Bias Testing’, Memorandum no. 3, Department of Economics, University of Oslo. (Presented at the EAERE congress, Stockholm 1991.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seip, K., Strand, J. Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment. Environ Resource Econ 2, 91–106 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00324691
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00324691