IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v70y1988i3p654-662..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing Environmental Quality: Weak Complementarity with Sets of Goods

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy E. Bockstael
  • Catherine L. Kling

Abstract

In practice, it is frequently impossible to identify a single good which is a weak complement to an environmental amenity for which welfare measures are desired. However, a set of goods exhibiting this property sometimes exists, e.g., water-related recreational activities when the nonmarket good to be valued is water quality. A set of weak complements is defined and implications for welfare measurement presented. The proper welfare measure now involves evaluation of a line integral and simple additions of areas under demand curves will not always be correct. However, under certain econometric circumstances, approximate welfare measures can be obtained from estimated functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy E. Bockstael & Catherine L. Kling, 1988. "Valuing Environmental Quality: Weak Complementarity with Sets of Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 654-662.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:70:y:1988:i:3:p:654-662.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1241504
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2004. "What's the use? welfare estimates from revealed preference models when weak complementarity does not hold," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 55-70, January.
    2. David G. Brown, 2009. "A Revealed Preference Feasibility Condition for Weak Complementarity," Departmental Working Papers 2009-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    3. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    4. Alain Carpentier & Dominique Vermersch, 1997. "Measuring willingness to pay for drinking water quality using the econometrics of equivalence scales [Mesure du consentement à payer pour une qualité d'eau potable au moyen de la méthode économétri," Post-Print hal-02841037, HAL.
    5. Larson, Douglas M., 1990. "Measuring Willingness to Pay for Nonmarket Goods," 1990 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Vancouver, Canada 270872, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Dan Phaneuf, 2000. "Choice Set Definition Issues in a Kuhn-Tucker Model of Recreation Demand," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1821, Econometric Society.
    7. Larson, Douglas M. & Piennar, Elizabeth, 2004. "Time, Weak Complementarity, and Nonuse Value," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 271500, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Larson, Douglas & Lew, Daniel & Loomis, John, 1999. "Are Revealed Preference Measures of Quality Change Benefits Statistically Significant?," Western Region Archives 321712, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    9. Larson, Douglas M., 1992. "Can Nonuse Value Be Measured from Observable Behavior?," 1992 Annual Meeting, August 9-12, Baltimore, Maryland 271377, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Prins, Robert & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Phillips, William, 1990. "Non-Timber Values and Forest Resources An Annotated Bibliography," Project Report Series 232083, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    11. Udo Ebert, 2009. "On the definition of nonessentiality," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(3), pages 2045-2049.
    12. Huang, Ju-Chin & Kerry Smith, V., 1998. "Weak complementarity and production," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 329-333, September.
    13. Cooper, Joseph C., 1995. "The Application of Nonmarket Valuation Techniques to Agricultural Issues," Staff Reports 333359, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    15. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:70:y:1988:i:3:p:654-662.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.