Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A comparative study of environmental amenity valuations

Contents:

Author Info

  • Mordechai Shechter

Abstract

The paper reports on a comparative study of direct and indirect approaches to valuing environmental amenities (i.e., public goods), specifically, air quality in terms of its human health effects. The application of three indirect valuation methods (via market goods) is reported here: the health production method, a consumer preferences (for nonmarket goods) model, and the cost of illness method. The first and second methods are (economic) behavior-based approaches where willingness to pay for an environmental good is derived by exploiting relationships in consumption between the public good and market good(s). The third method is based on a physical relationship—a dose-response function—between the environmental good and health. The direct valuation approach encompassed three contingent valuation elicitation formats: open-ended, modified iterative bidding game, and referenda-style binary choice. The application of all four methods was based on data from a survey of a large, stratified sample of households from the Haifa metropolitan area in northern Israel. The estimates of welfare change derived by the various methods are discussed and compared. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00310015
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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 European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental & Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 1 (1991)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 129-155

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:1:y:1991:i:2:p:129-155

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263

Related research

Keywords: Valuation methods; pollution abatement benefits; contingent valuation method; cost of illness method; health production function; translog utility function;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Bockstael, Nancy E & McConnell, Kenneth E, 1983. "Welfare Measurement in the Household Production Framework," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 806-14, September.
  2. Knetsch, Jack L & Sinden, J A, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 507-21, August.
  3. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
  4. Randall, Alan & Stoll, John R, 1980. "Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 449-55, June.
  5. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  6. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-97, September.
  7. Gerking, Shelby & Stanley, Linda R, 1986. "An Economic Analysis of Air Pollution and Health: The Case of St. Louis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(1), pages 115-21, February.
  8. Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. " Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-84, June.
  9. Cropper, M L, 1981. "Measuring the Benefits from Reduced Morbidity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(2), pages 235-40, May.
  10. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-77, March.
  11. McMillan, Melville L & Amoako-Tuffour, Joe, 1988. "An Examination of Preferences for Local Public Sector Outputs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(1), pages 45-54, February.
  12. Christensen, Laurits R. & Manser, Marilyn E., 1977. "Estimating U.S. consumer preferences for meat with a flexible utility function," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 37-53, January.
  13. Harrington, Winston & Portney, Paul R., 1987. "Valuing the benefits of health and safety regulation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 101-112, July.
  14. Jorgenson, Dale W & Slesnick, Daniel T, 1987. "Aggregate Consumer Behavior and Household Equivalence Scales," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 5(2), pages 219-32, April.
  15. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1987. "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521348102, April.
  16. McConnell, Kenneth E., 1985. "The economics of outdoor recreation," Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, in: A. V. Kneese† & J. L. Sweeney (ed.), Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 677-722 Elsevier.
  17. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-41, September.
  18. Loehman, Edna & De, Vo Hu, 1982. "Application of Stochastic Choice Modeling to Policy Analysis of Public Goods: A Case Study of Air Quality Improvements," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 64(3), pages 474-80, August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
  2. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
  3. Pierre Thomas Léger, 2001. "Willingness to Pay for Improvements in Air Quality," Cahiers de recherche 01-02, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
  4. V. Smith & Ju Huang, 1993. "Hedonic models and air pollution: Twenty-five years and counting," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(4), pages 381-394, August.
  5. F. Butter & H. Verbruggen, 1994. "Measuring the trade-off between economic growth and a clean environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 187-208, April.
  6. Becker, Nir & Shechter, Mordechai, 1996. "Decentralized economic incentives under technological indivisibilities: a cooperative game approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 9-20, April.
  7. Nir Becker & Mira Baron & Mordechai Shechter, 1993. "Economic instruments for emission abatement under appreciable technological indivisibilities," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(3), pages 263-284, June.

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:kap:enreec:v:1:y:1991:i:2:p:129-155. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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.