Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Environmental Valuation: Some Problems of Wrong Questions and Misleading Answers

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jack L. Knetsch

Abstract

Contingent valuation of people's willingness to pay has rapidly become the method of choice to value all manner of environmental damages. The correct measure is, however, the sum people require to compensate them for such losses, an amount which will normally be far larger than their willingness to pay. And on present evidence, responses to contingent valuation questions are not likely to represent any measure of economic values. The results of these valuation practices will, therefore, bias environmental policies and distort incentives.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/whp/ev/1994/00000003/00000004/art00004
Download Restriction: downloads of articles require payment or registration of paid subscription

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by White Horse Press in its journal Environmental Values.

Volume (Year): 3 (1994)
Issue (Month): 4 (November)
Pages: 351-368

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:env:journl:ev3:ev319

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.erica.demon.co.uk

Related research

Keywords: Contingent valuation; endowment effect; valuation;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
  2. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
  3. Thampapillai, Dodo J., 2011. "Value of sensitive in-situ environmental assets in energy resource extraction," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7695-7701.
  4. Zendehdel, Kamran & Rademaker, Michael & De Baets, Bernard & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2008. "Increasing environmental sustainability by incorporating stakeholders' intensities of preferences into the policy formation," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44206, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  5. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
  6. Dodo J. Thampapillai, 2010. "Perfect competition and sustainability: a brief note," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 37(5), pages 384-390, May.
  7. Ivo Bischoff, 2008. "Endowment effect theory, prediction bias and publicly provided goods: an experimental study," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 283-296, March.
  8. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  9. Antonio A. R. Ioris, 2012. "The Positioned Construction of Water Values: Pluralism, Positionality and Praxis," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 21(2), pages 143-162, May.
  10. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
  11. Zendehdel, Kamran & Rademaker, Michael & De Baets, Bernard & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2008. "Qualitative valuation of environmental criteria through a group consensus based on stochastic dominance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 253-264, September.
  12. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:env:journl:ev3:ev319. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Andrew Johnson).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.