IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v40y1996i2p129-133.html

Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens (Blamey, Common And Quiggin, Ajae 39:3) — A Comment

Author

Listed:
  • John Rolfe
  • Jeffrey W. Bennett

Abstract

Blarney, Common and Quiggin (1995) (BCQ) suggest that responses to contingent valuation (CV) questionnaires may be framed either according to the extent of individual benefits received, or according to wider views about ethical frameworks, impacts on other people, or desired societal levels. They characterise the individual benefit approach as a consumer model, and responses indicating wider concerns as citizen preferences. Citizen value responses are held to invalidate the economic assumptions underlying the use of CV. Hence, they hypothesize that the incorporation of CV results into benefit-cost analysis is problematic. In this comment we suggest that there are several flaws with the citizen value hypothesis. These can be grouped into arguments about the existence of citizen values based on ethical or altruistic grounds, and arguments about the identification of citizen values.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • John Rolfe & Jeffrey W. Bennett, 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens (Blamey, Common And Quiggin, Ajae 39:3) — A Comment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 129-133, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:40:y:1996:i:2:p:129-133
    DOI: j.1467-8489.1996.tb00559.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8489.1996.tb00559.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/j.1467-8489.1996.tb00559.x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kaowen Grace Chang & Hungju Chien & Hungyao Cheng & Hsin-i Chen, 2018. "The Impacts of Tourism Development in Rural Indigenous Destinations: An Investigation of the Local Residents’ Perception Using Choice Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2015. "Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-10.
    3. Karine Latouche, 1999. "Farm animal welfare : French perception through contingent valuation method," Post-Print hal-02285598, HAL.
    4. Curtis, John A. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(01), pages 1-15.
    5. McCartney, Abbie & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups," Research Reports 107575, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    6. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 306-318.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ajarec:v:40:y:1996:i:2:p:129-133. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (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.