Considering household size in Contingent Valuation studies
AbstractIn many empirical Contingent Valuation studies one finds that household size, i. e. the number auf household members, is negatively correlated with stated household willingness to pay for the realization of environmental projects. This observation is rather puzzling because in larger households more people can benefit from an environmental improvement than in small households. Therefore, the overall benefit should be greater for larger households. A plausible explanation could be that household budgets are tighter for large families than for smaller families with the same overall family income. The fact that larger families can afford only smaller willingness to pay statements in Contingent Valuation surveys than smaller families with the same income and the same preferences might have consequences for the allocation of public funds whenever the realization of an environmental project is made dependent on the outcome of a Contingent Valuation study. In this paper we show how the use of household equivalence scales for the assessment of environmental projects with the Contingent Valuation Method can serve to reduce the discrimination of members of large families. --
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID) in its series FZID Discussion Papers with number 68-2013.
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Other versions of this item:
- Ahlheim, Michael & Schneider, Friedrich, 2013. "Considering Household Size in Contingent Valuation Studies," Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79974, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
- D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
- H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGR-2013-03-16 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2013-03-16 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENV-2013-03-16 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-PPM-2013-03-16 (Project, Program & Portfolio Management)
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.:
- Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & O'Conor, Richard M, 1996.
"The Value of Private Safety versus the Value of Public Safety,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer,
Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 263-75, November.
- Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & O'Conor, Richard M., 1996. "The Value of Private Safety versus the Value of Public Safety," Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 103, Stockholm School of Economics.
- Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
- Ahlheim, Michael, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the budget constraint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 205-211, November.
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.