IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v71y1995i4p462-473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Precise Are Monetary Representations of Environmental Improvements?

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Gregory
  • Sarah Lichtenstein
  • Thomas C. Brown
  • George L. Peterson
  • Paul Slovic

Abstract

Subjects 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Gregory & Sarah Lichtenstein & Thomas C. Brown & George L. Peterson & Paul Slovic, 1995. "How Precise Are Monetary Representations of Environmental Improvements?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 462-473.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:71:y:1995:i:4:p:462-473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146711
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    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. Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Svedsater, Henrik, 2007. "Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(1), pages 1-17.
    4. 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), pages 1-11, October.
    5. Rauschmeyer, F., 1998. "Minimierung ökonomischer Verzerrung bei Ausgleichszahlungen für eine umweltschonende Landwirtschaft," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 34.
    6. Andersson, Jessica E.C., 2007. "The recreational cost of coral bleaching -- A stated and revealed preference study of international tourists," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 704-715, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard C. Ready & Ståle Navrud & RW. Richard Dubourg, 2001. "How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 315-326.
    9. 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, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 307-326, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Needham, Katherine & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2018. "What is the causal impact of information and knowledge in stated preference studies?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 69-89.
    12. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    13. 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.
    14. 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, February.
    15. 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.
    16. María Xosé Vázquez & Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2006. "Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 403-417, April.

    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:uwp:landec:v:71:y:1995:i:4:p:462-473. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.