IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eep/report/rr2000071.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Existence Value: A Re-Appraisal and Cross-Cultural Comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Billy Manoka

    (University of Massachusetts)

Abstract

This research compared existence values held by Portland, Maine (United States) and Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea) residents for the preservation of an additional five percent of the world's tropical rain forests and identified economic and non-economic components of existence value and use values. Existence value was narrowly defined as cognitive in nature; it is the value placed on simply knowing tropical rain forests exists independent of current and future use values. Between November 1998 and February 1999, a 16 page mail-back questionnaire was sent to a random sample of residents in Portland and Port Moresby. A total of 330 and 461 questionnaires were returned from Portland, and Port Moresby, respectively for an overall response rate of 41 and 49 percent, respectively. The results indicated that non-economic components of mean willingness to pay (WTP) accounted for at least 50 percent of the total value for both Portland and Port Moresby residents. Non-economic components of existence value (intrinsic value, good cause, moral duty etc) and use value (non paternalistic altruism) were excluded to avoid presenting overestimated benefits. Portland and Port Moresby WTP estimates were found to be statistically different from each other. This finding invalidated the assumption that benefits could be directly transferable between countries, especially between developed and developing countries. This result was also supported by evidence of statistical differences in motives and socioeconomic variables between Portland and Port Moresby respondents. Portland residents generally had a higher value for existence (as a proportion of total mean WTP) than Port Moresby residents. Both the Portland and Port Moresby WTP estimates were lower than Kramer and Mercers' (1997) US estimates. Results from the attitudinal models showed that Port Moresby respondents were more environment oriented than Portland respondents were. The latter were more development oriented. Port Moresby respondents expressed the sentiment that the rich nations of the world (including the US) should bear the responsibility of preserving tropical rain forests.

Suggested Citation

  • Billy Manoka, 2000. "Existence Value: A Re-Appraisal and Cross-Cultural Comparison," EEPSEA Research Report rr2000071, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jul 2000.
    • Handle: RePEc:eep:report:rr2000071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eepsea.org/pub/rr/10536131230ACF26B.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2000
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    2. Edwards, Steven F., 1986. "Ethical Preferences And The Assessment Of Existence Values: Does The Neoclassical Model Fit?," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-6, October.
    3. Randall A. Kramer & D. Evan Mercer, 1997. "Valuing a Global Environmental Good: U.S. Residents' Willingness to Pay to Protect Tropical Rain Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 196-210.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mika Rekola, 2003. "Lexicographic Preferences in Contingent Valuation: A Theoretical Framework with Illustrations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 277-291.
    2. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    3. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    4. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    5. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.
    7. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    8. 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.
    9. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias, 2004. "Sustainable Value Added--measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 173-187, February.
    11. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?— Reply," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 135-138, August.
    12. Wang, Hua & Whittington, Dale, 2005. "Measuring individuals' valuation distributions using a stochastic payment card approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 143-154, November.
    13. Thomas Hammerschmidt & Hans-Peter Zeitler & Markus Gulich & Reiner Leidl, 2004. "A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 493-503, October.
    14. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    15. Kim, Seon-Ae & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2004. "The Effect Of Economic Factors On The Apoption Of Best Management Practices In Beef Cattle Production," 2004 Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2004, Tulsa, Oklahoma 34670, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Contingent Valuation Elicitation Effects: Revisiting the Payment Card," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125686, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007. "Model Selection in Iterative Valuation Questions," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(5), pages 853-865.
    18. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    19. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    20. 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.

    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:eep:report:rr2000071. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Arief Anshory yusuf (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eepsesg.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.