Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Ahlheim, Michael
  • Frör, Oliver
  • Heinke, Antonia
  • Duc, Nguyen Minh
  • Dinh, Pham Van

Abstract

The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) aims at the assessment of people's willingness to pay (WTP) for a public project. The sum of the individual WTPs is interpreted as the social benefits of the project under consideration and compared to the project costs. If the benefits exceed the costs the project is recommended for realization. In very poor societies budgets are so tight that households cannot give up any part of their income, i.e. of their market consumption, in favour of a public project, so that their WTP for that project stated in a CVM interview has to be zero or close to zero. This leads to a severe discrimination against poor regions in the decision process on the allocation of public funds. Therefore, several authors suggest to use labour contributions to the realization of a public project instead of monetary contributions as a measure of people's WTP for that project. In this paper we show theoretically and empirically, based on a CVM study conducted in Vietnam, that labour is severely flawed as a measuring rod for individual utility so that CVM based on labour contributions does not provide a reliable and meaningful decision rule for the allocation of public projects. --

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://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/30164/1/620067632.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID) in its series FZID Discussion Papers with number 13-2010.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:zbw:fziddp:132010

Contact details of provider:
Postal: D-70593 Stuttgart
Phone: 0711-459-22476
Fax: 0711-459-23360
Email:
Web page: http://www.fzid.uni-hohenheim.de/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Cost-benefit analysis; Contingent Valuation; developing countries; public expenditures;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Dale Whittington, 1996. "Administering Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp199601t1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jan 1996.
  2. Amoako-Tuffour, Joe & Martınez-Espineira, Roberto, 2008. "Leisure and the Opportunity Cost of Travel Time in Recreation Demand Analysis: A Re-Examination," MPRA Paper 8573, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  3. Dale Whittington, 2002. "Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 323-367, June.
  4. Frank J. Cesario, 1976. "Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(1), pages 32-41.
  5. Shogren, Jason F. & Hayes, Dermot J., 1997. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: Reply," Staff General Research Papers 1153, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  6. Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop, 2006. "Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 162-173.
  7. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
  8. Shyamsundar, Priya & Kramer, Randall A., 1996. "Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-144, September.
  9. Jara-Díaz, Sergio R. & Munizaga, Marcela A. & Greeven, Paulina & Guerra, Reinaldo & Axhausen, Kay, 2008. "Estimating the value of leisure from a time allocation model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 946-957, December.
  10. Raymond Palmquist & Daniel Phaneuf & V. Smith, 2010. "Short Run Constraints and the Increasing Marginal Value of Time in Recreation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 19-41, May.
  11. Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Staff General Research Papers 701, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  12. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
  13. Ahlheim, Michael, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the budget constraint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 205-211, November.
  14. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
  15. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  16. Ahlheim, Michael & Fror, Oliver, 2003. "Valuing the non-market production of agriculture," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(8).
  17. Jiang, Meilan & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2004. "Theoretical analysis on the variation of value of travel time savings," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 551-571, October.
  18. Kathleen M. Painter & Robert Douglas Scott & Philip R. Wandschneider & Kenneth L. Casavant, 2002. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure User and Nonuser Benefits: An Application to Public Transit," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 394-409.
  19. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July.
  20. Le Trong Hung & John B. Loomis & Vu Tien Thinh, 2007. "Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 173-185.
  21. Blamey, Russell, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the activation of environmental norms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 47-72, January.
  22. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, May.
  23. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
  24. Young-Sook Eom & Douglas Larson, 2006. "Valuing housework time from willingness to spend time and money for environmental quality improvements," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 205-227, 09.
  25. Knetsch, Jack L, 1995. "Asymmetric Valuation of Gains and Losses and Preference Order Assumptions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(1), pages 134-41, January.
  26. Echessah, Protase N. & Swallow, Brent M. & Kamara, Damaris W. & Curry, John J., 1997. "Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: Application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 239-253, February.
  27. Evans, Alan W, 1972. "On the Theory of the Valuation and Allocation of Time," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 19(1), pages 1-17, February.
  28. Douglas Dalenberg & John Fitzgerald & Eric Schuck & John Wicks, 2004. "How Much Is Leisure Worth? Direct Measurement with Contingent Valuation," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 351-365, 08.
  29. Jack L. Knetsch, 1994. "Environmental Valuation: Some Problems of Wrong Questions and Misleading Answers," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 3(4), pages 351-368, November.
  30. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
  31. Asquith, Nigel M. & Vargas, Maria Teresa & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 675-684, May.
  32. Lew, Daniel K. & Larson, Douglas M., 2005. "Accounting for stochastic shadow values of time in discrete-choice recreation demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 341-361, September.
  33. Propper, Carol, 1990. "Contingent Valuation of Time Spent on NHS Waiting Lists," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(400), pages 193-99, Supplemen.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Lili Reyes Hernandez & Melissa Yepes Tafur, 2013. "Evaluacion economica de preservar el mono titi cabeciblanco: Una aplicacion del metodo de valoracion contigente," REVISTA ECONOMÍA & REGIÓN, UNIVERSIDAD TECNOLÓGICA DE BOLÍVAR.
  2. Rajesh Kumar Rai & Helen Scarborough, 2012. "Non-market Valuation in Developing Countries: Estimating Benefits of Managing Invasive Plants Using Choice a Choice Experiment," Economics Series 2012_8, Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance.

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:zbw:fziddp:132010. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).

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.