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

Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective

Contents:

Author Info

  • Leonard Shabman
  • Kurt Stephenson

Abstract

This paper contrasts the results of the contingent valuation, hedonic price, and property damages avoided valuation techniques. Each technique was used to estimate the value of flood risk reduction from the construction of a flood control project. Voting behavior in a referendum called specifically for the provision of the project was used to further interpret the results from the three valuation studies. Substantial differences were found between the estimates. In explaining these differences an alternative perspective on the current debate over the validity and accuracy of nonmarket value estimates is offered.

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://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146907
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 look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 72 (1996)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 433-449

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:4:p:433-449

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

Related research

Keywords:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
  2. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
  3. Schlapfer, Felix & Roschewitz, Anna & Hanley, Nick, 2004. "Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 1-16, November.
  4. Felix Schlapfer & Anna Roschewitz & Nick Hanley, . "Contingent valuation and real referendum behaviour," Working Papers, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow 2001_8, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
  5. Schilizzi, Steven, 1999. "Deciding between development and preservation of a natural asset: a way out of the impasse?," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society 124547, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  6. Romina Cavatassi, 2004. "Valuation Methods for Environmental Benefits in Forestry and Watershed Investment Projects," Working Papers, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA) 04-01, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA).
  7. Filatova, Tatiana & Parker, Dawn Cassandra & van der Veen, Anne, 2011. "The Implications of Skewed Risk Perception for a Dutch Coastal Land Market: Insights from an Agent-Based Computational Economics Model," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(3), December.
  8. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
  9. David E. Clark & Robert Griffin & Vladimir Novoty, 2005. "Assessing the Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Urban Flood Control: The Role of Locational, Demographic and attitudinal Factors," Working Papers and Research, Marquette University, Center for Global and Economic Studies and Department of Economics 0503, Marquette University, Center for Global and Economic Studies and Department of Economics.
  10. Schmid, A. Allan, 2004. "Economic Analysis And Efficiency In Public Expenditure," Staff Papers, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics 11776, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
  11. Van Lantz & Ryan Trenholm & Jeff Wilson & William Richards, 2012. "Assessing market and non-market costs of freshwater flooding due to climate change in the community of Fredericton, Eastern Canada," Climatic Change, Springer, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 347-372, January.
  12. Michel Lang & Bernard Chastan & Frédéric Grelot, 2009. "La méthode Inondabilité : appropriation par les hydrologues de la vulnérabilité dans le diagnostic sur le risque d'inondation," Post-Print, HAL hal-00493184, HAL.
  13. Premachandra Wattage & John Soussan, 2003. "Incorporating Environmental Value and Externality in Project Evaluation as a Sustainability Indicator to evaluate Bangladesh Water Development," Water Resources Management, Springer, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 429-446, December.
  14. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe & Polasky, Stephen & Gainutdinova, Olesya, 2003. "Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 261-277, June.
  15. Gowan, Charles & Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard, 2006. "The role of ecosystem valuation in environmental decision making: Hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the Elwha River," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 508-523, April.

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:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:4:p:433-449. 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: ().

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.