IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v8y1994i4p3-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care

Author

Listed:
  • Paul R. Portney

Abstract

The contingent valuation method, wherein sample surveys are used to elicit individuals' willingness to pay for certain types of policies, is playing an important role in government decision-making. The most prominent applications are in the valuation of damages to natural resources from oil spills. But the contingent valuation method will be more important still if it is used to expand the range of impacts included in applied benefit-cost analyses. This paper explains the origins of the contingent valuation method and the route through which it came to be the center of both an academic and a legal debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:8:y:1994:i:4:p:3-17
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/jep.8.4.3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.8.4.3
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hazilla, Michael & Kopp, Raymond J, 1990. "Social Cost of Environmental Quality Regulations: A General Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 853-873, August.
    2. Krupnick, Alan J & Cropper, Maureen L, 1992. "The Effect of Information on Health Risk Valuations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 29-48, February.
    3. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    4. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    5. D. Grant Devine & Bruce W. Marion, 1979. "The Influence of Consumer Price Information on Retail Pricing and Consumer Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 228-237.
    6. 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).
    7. Grant Devine & Bruce Marion, 1979. "The influence of consumer price information on retail pricing and consumer behavior," Framed Field Experiments 00138, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    9. 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. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, March.
    3. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2017. "Constructing Markets: Environmental Economics and the Contingent Valuation Controversy," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 213-239, Supplemen.
    4. François Bonnieux & Philippe Le Goffe & Dominique Vermersch, 1995. "La méthode d'évaluation contingente : application à la qualité des eaux littorales," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 117(1), pages 89-106.
    5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    6. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    7. Jung-Eun Kim & Jungsung Yeo, 2010. "Valuation of Consumers’ Personal Information: A South Korean Example," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306, September.
    8. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    9. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    12. Jean-Paul Chavas & Rulon D. Pope, 1984. "Information: Its Measurement and Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(5), pages 705-710.
    13. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    14. William S. Neilson & Michael McKee & Robert P. Berrens, 2013. "Value and outcome uncertainty as explanations for the WTA vs WTP disparity," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 6, pages 171-189, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Anders H. Sirén & Juan-Camilo Cardenas & Peter Hambäck & Kalle Parvinen, 2013. "Distance Friction and the Cost of Hunting in Tropical Forest," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 558-574.
    16. Stratton, Gary R. & Smathers, Webb M., Jr. & Gooding, Robert, 1992. "Disparity between Hunters' Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept Compensation: An Empirical Example," Working Papers 117657, Clemson University, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    17. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    18. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    19. Bhattacharyya, Aditi & Kutlu, Levent & Sickles, Robin C., 2018. "Pricing Inputs and Outputs: Market prices versus shadow prices, market power, and welfare analysis," Working Papers 18-009, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    20. Darla Hatton MacDonald & Mark Morrison & Mary Barnes, 2010. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept Compensation for Changes in Urban Water Customer Service Standards," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 3145-3158, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:aea:jecper:v:8:y:1994:i:4:p:3-17. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.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.