Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Contingent valuation
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{Short description|Survey-based economic technique for finding the value of resources without market prices}} {{Distinguish|Contingent claim valuation}} '''Contingent valuation''' is a [[statistical survey|survey]]-based economic technique for the valuation of non-[[Factors of production|market resources]], such as [[Environmental protection|environmental preservation]] or the impact of [[externalities]] like [[pollution]]. While these resources do give people [[utility]], certain aspects of them do not have a [[market price]] as they are not directly sold β for example, people receive benefit from a beautiful view of a mountain, but it would be tough to value using [[price]]-based models. Contingent valuation surveys are one technique which is used to measure these aspects. Contingent valuation is often referred to as a [[Choice modelling|''stated preference'' model]], in contrast to a price-based ''[[revealed preference]]'' model. Both models are utility-based. Typically the survey asks how much money people would be [[willingness to pay|willing to pay]] (or [[Willingness to accept|willing to accept]]) to maintain the existence of (or be compensated for the loss of) an environmental feature, such as [[biodiversity]]. ==History== Contingent valuation surveys were first proposed in theory by [[S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup]] (1947) as a method for eliciting market [[valuation (finance)|valuation]] of a non-market [[good (economics)|good]]. The first practical application of the technique was in 1963 when Robert K. Davis used surveys to estimate the value hunters and tourists placed on a particular wilderness area. He compared the survey results to an estimation of value based on travel costs and found good correlation with his results. This work was published as his Ph.D. Dissertation at Harvard "The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study of the Maine Woods." See also:<ref>{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Robert |date=1963 |title=Recreation planning as an economic problem |url=https://heinonline.org/hol/landingpage?handle=hein.journals/narj3&div=16 }}</ref> This work, and other early applications of the method are described in Chapter 1 of "Using Surveys to Value Public Goods" by Robert Cameron Mitchell, and Richard T. Carson.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mitchell |first=Robert Cameron |date=2013-10-18 |title=Using Surveys to Value Public Goods |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315060569 |doi=10.4324/9781315060569|isbn=9781315060569 }}</ref> The method rose to high prominence in the USA in the 1980s when government agencies were given the power to sue for damage to environmental resources which they were trustees over. Following ''Ohio v Department of the Interior'', the types of damages which they were able to recover included non-use or [[existence value]]s. Existence values are unable to be assessed through market pricing mechanisms, so contingent valuation surveys were suggested to assess them. During this time, the EPA convened an important conference with an aim to recommend guidelines for survey design. The [[Exxon Valdez oil spill]] in [[Prince William Sound]] was the first case where contingent valuation surveys were used in a quantitative assessment of damages. Use of the technique has spread from there. ==Past controversies== Many economists question the use of stated preference to determine [[willingness to pay]] for a good, preferring to rely on people's [[revealed preference]]s in binding market transactions. Early contingent valuation surveys were often open-ended questions of the form "how much compensation would you demand for the destruction of X area" or "how much would you pay to preserve X". Such surveys potentially suffer from a number of shortcomings; strategic behaviour, protest answers, [[response bias]] and respondents ignoring income constraints.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Peter A. |last1=Diamond |first2=Jerry A. |last2=Hausman |title=Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number better than No Number? |journal=[[Journal of Economic Perspectives]] |volume=8 |issue=4 |year=1994 |pages=45β64 |jstor=2138338 |doi=10.1257/jep.8.4.45|doi-access=free }}</ref> Early surveys used in environmental valuation seemed to indicate people were expressing a general preference for environmental spending in their answers, described as the [[embedding effect]] by detractors of the method. In response to criticisms of contingent valuation surveys, a panel of high profile economists (chaired by [[Nobel Prize]] laureates [[Kenneth Arrow]] and [[Robert Solow]]) was convened under the auspices of the United States [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]] (NOAA).<ref name="Hein-2010">{{cite book | title=Economics and Ecosystems Efficiency, Sustainability and Equity in Ecosystem Management | first=Lars | last=Hein | publisher=[[Edward Elgar Publishing|Edward Elgar]] | date=2010 | location=[[Cheltenham, UK]] β’ [[Northampton, MA]], USA | lccn=2009942849 | isbn=978-1-84844-065-4}}</ref><ref name="Onstad-Crain-2019">{{cite book | title=The Economics of Integrated Pest Management of Insects | first1=David W. | last1=Onstad | first2=Philip R. | last2=Crain | location=[[Boston, MA]], USA [[Wallingford, Oxfordshire]], UK | publisher=CABI ([[Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International]]) | date=2019 | lccn=2019016878 | isbn=978-1-78639-367-8}} {{isbn|978 1 78639 368 5}}. {{isbn|978 1 78639 369 2}}.</ref><ref name="Mander-et-al-2007">{{cite book | editor-first1=Γlo | editor-last1=Mander | editor-first2=Hubert | editor-last2=Wiggering | editor-first3=Katharina | editor-last3=Helming | title=Multifunctional Land Use Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services | publisher=[[Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York]] | lccn=2007921526 | isbn=978-3-540-36762-8 | date=2007}}.</ref> The panel heard evidence from 22 expert economists and published its results in 1993.<ref name="Hein-2010" /><ref name="Mander-et-al-2007" /><ref name="Onstad-Crain-2019" /> The recommendations of the NOAA panel were that contingent valuation surveys should be carefully designed and controlled due to the inherent difficulties in eliciting accurate economic values through [[Survey sampling|survey methods]]. The most important recommendations of the NOAA panel were that: *Personal interviews be used to conduct the survey, as opposed to telephone or mall-stop methods. *Surveys be designed in a yes or no referendum format put to the respondent as a vote on a specific tax to protect a specified resource. *Respondents be given detailed information on the resource in question and on the protection measure they were voting on. This information should include threats to the resource (best and worst-case scenarios), scientific evaluation of its ecological importance and possible outcomes of protection measures. *Income effects be carefully explained to ensure respondents understood that they were to express their willingness to pay to protect the particular resource in question, not the environment generally. *Subsidiary questions be asked to ensure respondents understood the question posed. *"[CVM] produces estimates reliable enough to be the starting point of a judicial process of damage assessment, including passive-use values"<ref name="Onstad-Crain-2019" /> and has been successfully used in such high profile cases as the [[Exxon Valdez oil spill]].<ref name="Hein-2010" /><ref name="Mander-et-al-2007" /> The guiding principle behind these recommendations was that the survey operator has a high [[legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] to satisfy before the results can be seen as meaningful. Surveys meeting these criteria are very expensive to operate and to ameliorate the expense of conducting surveys the panel recommended a set of reference surveys which future surveys could be compared to and calibrated against. The NOAA panel also felt, in general, that conservative estimates of value were to be preferred and one important consequence of this decision is that they recommended contingent valuation surveys measure willingness to pay to protect the good rather than willingness to accept compensation for the loss of the resource. As a result, current contingent valuation methodology corrects for these shortcomings, and current empirical testing indicates that such bias and inconsistency has been successfully addressed.<ref>See, for example, Robert Simons and Kimberly Winson-Geideman, Determining Market Perceptions On Contaminated Residential Property Buyers Using Contingent Valuation Surveys, ''Journal of Real Estate Research'' 27-2, 2005, pgs 193-220</ref> ==Current status== As shown by Mundy and McLean (1998), contingent valuation is now widely accepted as a [[real estate appraisal]] technique, particularly in contaminated property or other situations where revealed preference models (i.e. transaction pricing) fail due to disequilibrium in the market.<ref>See, for example, Bill Mundy and Dave McLean, The Addition of Contingent Valuation and Conjoint Analysis to the Required Body of Knowledge for the Estimation of Environmental Damage to Real Estate, ''The Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education'', 1998, {{cite web|url=http://www.greenfieldadvisors.com/publications/contingentvaluation.pdf |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2007-06-30 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071010090936/http://www.greenfieldadvisors.com/publications/contingentvaluation.pdf |archivedate=2007-10-10 }}</ref> McLean, Mundy, and Kilpatrick (1999) demonstrate the acceptability of contingent valuation in real estate expert testimony,<ref>Dave McLean, Bill Mundy, and [[John A. Kilpatrick]], Summation of Evidentiary Rules for Real Estate Experts Mandated by Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, ''Real Estate Issues'', 1999, {{cite web|url=http://www.greenfieldadvisors.com/publications/sumevid.pdf |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2007-06-30 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070413143420/http://www.greenfieldadvisors.com/publications/sumevid.pdf |archivedate=2007-04-13 }}</ref> and the current standards for use of contingent valuation in litigation situations is described by Diamond (2000).<ref>Shari S. Diamond, Reference Guide on Survey Research (2nd), ''Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence'', Federal Judicial Center, 2000</ref> The technique has been widely used by government departments in the US when performing [[cost-benefit analysis]] of projects impacting, positively or negatively, on the environment. Examples include a valuation of water quality and recreational opportunities in the river downstream from Glen Canyon dam, [[biodiversity]] restoration in the Mono Lake and restoration of [[salmon]] spawning grounds in certain rivers. The technique has also been used in Australia to value areas of the [[Kakadu National Park]]<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Carson |first1=Richard T. |last2=Wilks |first2=Leanne |last3=Imber |first3=David |title=Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone |year=1994 |journal=Oxford Economic Papers |volume=46 |issue=Special Issue on Environmental Economics |pages=727β749 |doi=10.1093/oep/46.Supplement_1.727 |jstor=2663496 }}</ref> as well as [[trophy property]] in the United States, and is recognized as a valuable tool in the appraisal of [[brownfields]].<ref>[[John A. Kilpatrick|Kilpatrick, John A.]], Valuation of Brownfields, Chapter 29 in [[Lexis-Nexis]] Matthew Bender's ''Brownfield Law and Practice'', 2007</ref> == See also == *[[Choice modelling]] *[[Opportunity cost]] *[[Scarcity]] *[[Trade-off]] ==References== {{Reflist}} *W. Michael Hanemann, 'Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation' ''The Journal of Economic Perspectives'', Vol. 8, No. 4. (Autumn, 1994), pp. 19β43 *Paul R. Portney, 'The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care' ''The Journal of Economic Perspectives'', Vol. 8, No. 4. (Autumn, 1994), pp. 3β17 ==External links== *[https://web.archive.org/web/20041016062512/http://www.darp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/cvblue.pdf NOAA report] *[http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/contingent_valuation.htm#case1 Ecosystem Valuation information] *[http://www.envirovaluation.org Environmental Valuation and Cost-Benefit News] *[https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033651/http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n1-niewijk.html Misleading Quantification: The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Quality] (Robert K. Niewijk) *[http://www.aere.org/ Association of Environmental and Resource Economists] (AERE). *[http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622870/description#description - JEEM: Journal of Environmental Economics and Management] (AERE's official "technical" journal). *[https://web.archive.org/web/20070610231436/http://reep.oxfordjournals.org/ - REEP: Review of Environmental Economics and Policy] (AERE's official "accessible" journal). * [https://web.archive.org/web/20110425014056/http://www.washington.edu/research/showcase/1993b.html Economics of Natural Resource Decisions: Gardner Brown] (University of Washington Office of Research) * [http://biblio.repec.org/entry/tbbc.html Curated bibliography] at [[Research papers in economics|IDEAS/RePEc]] {{Authority control}} [[Category:Environmental economics]] [[Category:Survey methodology]] [[Category:Public policy research]]
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page
(
help
)
:
Template:Authority control
(
edit
)
Template:Cite book
(
edit
)
Template:Cite journal
(
edit
)
Template:Cite web
(
edit
)
Template:Distinguish
(
edit
)
Template:Isbn
(
edit
)
Template:Reflist
(
edit
)
Template:Short description
(
edit
)