IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajaeau/22615.html

Prospects For Contingent Valuation: Lessons From The South-East Forests

Author

Listed:
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.
  • Carter, Marc

Abstract

The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) has been strongly criticised in Australia following two prominent applications. The aims in this paper are to review these criticisms and to demonstrate how, through an application of the method, these potential problems were addressed. The results of the application - a valuation of the conservation benefits of the National Estate forests of Southeastern Australia - are presented. A key feature of the application was the use of focus group testing in the questionnaire design phase. Finally, an assessment is made of the future prospects for the use of the CVM in Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Carter, Marc, 1993. "Prospects For Contingent Valuation: Lessons From The South-East Forests," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 37(2), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajaeau:22615
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.22615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/22615/files/37020079.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.22615?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Groves, Theodore & Ledyard, John O, 1977. "Optimal Allocation of Public Goods: A Solution to the "Free Rider" Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 783-809, May.
    2. Blamey, Russell K. & Common, Mick S., 1993. "Stepping Back from Contingent Valuation," 1993 Conference (37th), February 9-11, 1993, Sydney, Australia 147487, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    4. Smith, V. Kerry, 1992. "Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 71-89, January.
    5. Smith, Vernon L, 1980. "Experiments with a Decentralized Mechanism for Public Good Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(4), pages 584-599, September.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Gemechisa Yadeta Ayana, . "Farmers’ Willingness To Pay For Soil Conservation Practices In Gobu Seyo District, Eastern Wollega Zone, Oromia National Regional State Of Ethiopia," International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research, Malwa International Journals Publication, vol. 3(3).
    2. Godden, David P. & Skellern, Matthew, 2006. "Natural Resources and the Environment," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 137772, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Jeff Bennett, 2005. "Australasian environmental economics: contributions, conflicts and ‘cop‐outs’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 243-261, September.
    4. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    5. Jakobsson, K. M. & Kennedy, John O.S. & Elliott, M., 1995. "Survey Methods of Valuing the Conservation of Endangered Species," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 170875, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Lockwood, Michael & Carberry, David, 1999. "Stated preference surveys of remnant native vegetation conservation," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 123831, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Workie, Lamesgin Tebeje, 2017. "Households’ Willingness To Pay For Soil Conservation Practices On Cultivated Land In South Achefer District, Amhara National Regional State Of Ethiopia: A Contingent Valuation Approach," Research Theses 276459, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    8. Luca Tacconi & Jeff Bennett, 1995. "Biodiversity Conservation: The Process of Economic Assessment and Establishment of a Protected Area in Vanuatu," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 26(1), pages 89-110, January.
    9. S. M. Chilton & W. G. Hutchinson, 1999. "Exploring Divergence Between Respondent and Researcher Definitions of the Good in Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 1-16, January.

    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. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    2. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    3. Carson, R.T. & Mitchell, R.C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Kopp, R.J. & Presser, S. & Ruud, P.A., 1992. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," MPRA Paper 6984, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    5. Hoehn, John P. & Loomis, John B., 1992. "Substitution Effects in the Contingent Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs: A Maximum Likelihood Estimator and Empirical Tests," Staff Paper Series 201147, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    7. Reischmann, Andreas, 2015. "The Conditional Contribution Mechanism for the Provision of Public Goods," Working Papers 0586, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    10. Gardner M. Brown & Jason F. Shogren, 1998. "Economics of the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 3-20, Summer.
    11. 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.
    12. Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Bishop, Richard C., 1999. "Sensitivity To Scope: Evidence From A Cvm Study Of Wetlands," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21513, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Hitzhusen, Frederick J. & Abdul-Mohsen, Ashraf & Kruse, Sarah, 2004. "Toward Improved Economic Analysis Using Contingent Valuation: Some Methodological Considerations Applied To River Toxics And Dam Removal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20326, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    15. Musser, Wesley N. & Musser, Lynn M. & Laughland, Andrew S. & Shortle, James S., "undated". "Contingent Valuation and Averting Costs Estimates of Benefits for Public Water Decisions in a Small Community," AE & RS Research Reports 257727, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    16. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
    17. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-18.
    18. Carson, Richard & Flores, Nicholas E. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1998. "Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 314-323, November.
    19. Sun, Henglun & Bergstrom, John C. & Dorfman, Jeffrey H., 1992. "Estimating the Benefits of Groundwater Contamination Control," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 63-71, December.
    20. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2018. "How are Scope and Adding up Relevant for Benefits Transfer?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 483-502, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:ajaeau:22615. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.