IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01931553.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing society’s demand for non market goods: overview of valuation methods

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Dupraz

    (Économie et Sociologie Rurales - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique)

  • . Organisation de Coopération Et de Développement Economique

    (OCDE - Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)

Abstract

Evaluation de la demande sociale pour les biens non marchands: vue d'ensemble des méthodes d'évaluation monétaire Cette contribution rappelle tout d'abord les fondements théoriques de la notion de consentement à payer du consommateur en référence aux différents concepts de surplus. Les différentes méthodes d'évaluation se distinguent selon la grandeur économique mesurée : le surplus du consommateur à utilité constante dans le cas de l'évaluation contingente, la demande marshalienne conduisant au calcul du surplus ordinaire dans le cas de la méthode des prix hédonistes, par exemples. Dans la pratique cependant, les principales différences entre les méthodes concernent l'adéquation au bien non marchand à évaluer et les informations nécessaires à leur mise en œuvre. Si les méthodes indirectes, des prix hédonistes et des coûts de déplacement, apparaissent plus fiables, car basées sur le comportement réels des consommateurs, elles achoppent fréquemment sur l'insuffisance d'information disponible pour une définition satisfaisante du bien à évaluer. Inversement les méthodes directes permettent d'évaluer des biens précisément définis, mais reposent sur un comportement fictif des consommateurs difficile à maîtriser. Ces difficultés pratiques sont examinées à partir de cas concrets tirés de la littérature. La conclusion identifie les pistes d'amélioration pour chacune des méthodes ainsi que les gains résidant dans la combinaison de différentes méthodes.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Dupraz & . Organisation de Coopération Et de Développement Economique, 2006. "Assessing society’s demand for non market goods: overview of valuation methods," Post-Print hal-01931553, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01931553
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01931553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01931553/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    2. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    3. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    4. Philippe Le Goffe, 2000. "Hedonic pricing of agriculture and forestry externalities," Post-Print hal-02364341, HAL.
    5. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1992. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 149-164, March.
    6. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    7. A Fleischer & Y Tsur, 2000. "Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 27(3), pages 385-398, September.
    8. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    10. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    11. F Colson & A Stenger-Letheux, 1996. "Evaluation contingente et paysages agricoles : Application au bocage de Loire-Atlantique," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 39, pages 151-177.
    12. William G. Brown & Farid Nawas, 1973. "Impact of Aggregation on the Estimation of Outdoor Recreation Demand Functions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 55(2), pages 246-249.
    13. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Philippe Le Goffe & Xavier Delache, 1997. "Impacts de l'agriculture sur le tourisme. Une application des prix hédonistes," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 239(1), pages 3-10.
    15. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    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. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    5. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    6. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    9. Longo, Alberto & Markandya, Anil & Petrucci, Marta, 2008. "The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 140-152, August.
    10. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    11. Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael & Wronka, Tobias C., 2003. "Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit Choice Experiments," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-11.
    12. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2012. "Recreational value, user heterogeneity and site characteristics in contingent valuation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 195-204.
    13. Luís Cruz & Paula Simões & Eduardo Barata, 2014. "Combining Observed and Contingent Travel Behaviour: The Best of Both Worlds?," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 7-25, December.
    14. Hervani, Aref Agahei & Sarkis, Joseph & Helms, Marilyn M., 2017. "Environmental goods valuations for social sustainability: A conceptual framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 137-153.
    15. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    16. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    17. Gill, David A. & Schuhmann, Peter W. & Oxenford, Hazel A., 2015. "Recreational diver preferences for reef fish attributes: Economic implications of future change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 48-57.
    18. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Hasler, Berit & Lundhede, Thomas, 2005. "Are Agricultural Measures for Groundwater Protection Beneficial When Compared to Purification of Polluted Groundwater?," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24587, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.

    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:hal:journl:hal-01931553. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.