How Precise Are Monetary Representations of Environmental Improvements?
AbstractSubjects valued environmental goods using a response mode expressing willingness to pay as a multiplier or divider of a purported "budgetary unit." Hypothetical willingness to pay was found to be highly dependent on the size of the budgetary unit. Rejecting two other interpretations, we believe the results suggest that people's contingent values are only vaguely represented in monetary terms; any dollar amount within a broad range is considered an acceptable expression of value. Although the procedures differ from those of a typical contingent valuation survey, the results demonstrate some of the difficulties in discovering precise monetary values for environmental resources.
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.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.
Volume (Year): 71 (1995)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Jolejole, Christina B. & Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank, 2009. "Incentives to Supply Enhanced Ecosystem Services from Cropland," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49356, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
- James Murphy & Thomas Stevens & Lava Yadav, 2010.
"A Comparison of Induced Value and Home-Grown Value Experiments to Test for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 111-123, September.
- James J. Murphy & Thomas H. Stevens & Lava Yadav, 2010. "A Comparison of Induced Value and Home-Grown Value Experiments to Test for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 2010-06, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
- Loomis, John & Ekstrand, Earl, 1998. "Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 29-41, October.
- Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2002. "Measuring Forest Resource Values: An Assessment Of Choice Experiments And Preference Construction Methods As Public Involvement Tools," Project Report Series 24036, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
- Rideout, Douglas B. & Ziesler, Pamela S. & Kling, Robert & Loomis, John B. & Botti, Stephen J., 2008. "Estimating rates of substitution for protecting values at risk for initial attack planning and budgeting," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 205-219, February.
- Martin J. Osborne & Matthew A. Turner, 2010. "Cost Benefit Analyses versus Referenda," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(1), pages 156-187, 02.
- Mark Morrison & Thomas Brown, 2009. "Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 307-326, November.
- Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
- Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
- Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), October.
- Mar�a Xosé Vázquez & Jorge E. Ara�a & Carmelo J. León, 2006. "Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 403-417.
- Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2008. "Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 626-635, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.