IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v111y2001i470p420-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Clinch, J Peter
  • Murphy, Anthony

Abstract

Contingent valuation is now the most widely used method for valuing non-marketed goods in cost-benefit analysis. Yet, despite the fact that many externalities manifest themselves as costs to some and benefits to others, most studies restrict willingness to pay to being non-negative. This can result in significant errors in policymaking. This paper examines the importance of this, explores appropriate welfare measures for assessing losses and gains, demonstrates how these can be elicited explicitly, highlights the sensitivity of the results of such studies to the econometric specification employed and suggests ways of dealing with it. Finally, the implications for policy are examined.

Suggested Citation

  • Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-443, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecj:econjl:v:111:y:2001:i:470:p:420-43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showTOC&journalCode=ecoj&volume=111&issue=470&year=&part=null
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search 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. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, James Michael & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(01), April.
    2. Stephen Hynes & Brian Cahill & Emma J. Dillon, 2007. "A Negative Binomial Discrete Choice Model of Forestry Recreation in Ireland," Working Papers 0709, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    3. Dikgang, Johane & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2012. "The valuation of biodiversity conservation by the South African Khomani San “bushmen” community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 7-14.
    4. Robert A. Simons & Jesse Saginor & Aly H. Karam & Hlengani Baloyi, 2008. "Use of Contingent Valuation Analysis in a Developing Country: Market Perceptions of Contamination on Johannesburg’s Mine Dumps," International Real Estate Review, Asian Real Estate Society, vol. 11(2), pages 75-104.
    5. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(1).
    6. Sofia N. Andreou & Panos Pashardes & Nicoletta Pashourtidou, 2015. "The value of state education to consumers," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 05-2015, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    7. Bugbee, Marcia & Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "A Risk Perception Analysis Of Genetically Modified Foods Based On Stated Preferences," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22017, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria, 2008. "Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 517-528.
    9. Nahuelhual, Laura & Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John B., 2004. "Using Random Parameters to Account for Heterogeneous Preferences in Contingent Valuation of Public Open Space," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(03), December.
    10. Groothuis, Peter A. & Whitehead, John C., 2009. "The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(02), pages 271-280, October.
    11. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    12. Lee, Gunwoo & Kim, Soo-Yeob & Lee, Min-Kyu, 2015. "Economic evaluation of vessel traffic service (VTS): A contingent valuation study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 149-154.
    13. Stephen Hynes & Cathal Buckley & Tom van Rensburg, 2006. "Agricultural versus Recreational Activity on Marginal Farm Land: A Discrete-Choice Model of Recreational Activity on Irish Farm Commonage," Working Papers 0603, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    14. Sofia N. Andreou & Panos Pashardes, 2012. "Consumers’ Valuation of Level and Egalitarian Education Attainment of Schools in England," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 10-2012, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    15. repec:eee:eneeco:v:67:y:2017:i:c:p:328-336 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Stephen Hynes & Cathal Buckley & Tom van Rensburg, 2007. "Recreational Pursuits on Marginal Farm Land: A Discrete-Choice Model of Irish Farm Commonage Recreation," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 38(1), pages 63-84.
    17. Ovaskainen, Ville & Kniivila, Matleena, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), December.
    18. 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.
    19. Laura Nahuelhual-Muñoz & Maria Loureiro & John Loomis, 2004. "Addressing Heterogeneous Preferences Using Parametric Extended Spike Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 297-311, March.
    20. repec:eee:touman:v:52:y:2016:i:c:p:173-186 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Sofia N. Andreou & Panos Pashardes, 2013. "Consumers’ Valuation of Academic and Equality-inducing Aspects of School Performance in England," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 09-2013, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    22. Ferreira, Susana & Moro, Mirko, 2010. "Constructing Genuine Savings Indicators for Ireland, 1995-2005," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2010-10, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    23. Giles Atkinson & Brett Day & Susana Mourato & Charles Palmer, 2004. "'Amenity' or 'eyesore'? Negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 203-208.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C24 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models; Threshold Regression Models
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • 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:ecj:econjl:v:111:y:2001:i:470:p:420-43. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.