Culture, communication, and the information problem in contingent valuation surveys: a case study of a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme
AbstractContingent valuation (CV) is a technique for providing estimates of the monetary value of public goods which have no market. The authors consider whether the information provided for the hypothetical market enables respondents to express their ‘true’ preference for the ‘good’, or whether their willingness to pay is dependent on the quantity and quality of information provided in the survey. They argue that a cultural perspective in which the CV transaction is viewed as a communicative ‘dialogue-at-a-distance’ between researchers and respondents through the medium of the CV text provides more insight into the encoding and decoding of the ‘good’—in this case an agri-environment policy to enhance nature conservation on an internationally significant wetland in South East England. They argue that, within its own scientific parameters, CV surveys are unable to capture fully all the aspects of the ‘good’ to be valued. The problem is more acute when the ‘good’ represents the uncertain outcomes (in terms of landscape and biodiversity) of a policy. Without a complete specification, which may well be an impossibility for environmental ‘goods’, respondents are able to bring their own readings to their interpretation of the scenario. This means that CV researchers cannot know precisely what ‘good’ respondents were attempting to ‘value’. The authors follow the production of the CV scenario for the valuation of the Pevensey Levels Wildlife Enhancement Scheme; conduct a critical discourse analysis to demonstrate how the linguistic and visual representations inevitably fulfil rhetorical functions; and then present the deliberations of respondents to the CV survey who participated in in-depth discussion groups after completion of the survey.
Download InfoIf 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.
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 InfoArticle provided by Pion Ltd, London in its journal Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy.
Volume (Year): 18 (2000)
Issue (Month): 5 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.pion.co.uk
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
- Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
- MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Neil Hammond).
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.