IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v1y1991i2p129-155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of environmental amenity valuations

Author

Listed:
  • Mordechai Shechter

Abstract

The paper reports on a comparative study of direct and indirect approaches to valuing environmental amenities (i.e., public goods), specifically, air quality in terms of its human health effects. The application of three indirect valuation methods (via market goods) is reported here: the health production method, a consumer preferences (for nonmarket goods) model, and the cost of illness method. The first and second methods are (economic) behavior-based approaches where willingness to pay for an environmental good is derived by exploiting relationships in consumption between the public good and market good(s). The third method is based on a physical relationship—a dose-response function—between the environmental good and health. The direct valuation approach encompassed three contingent valuation elicitation formats: open-ended, modified iterative bidding game, and referenda-style binary choice. The application of all four methods was based on data from a survey of a large, stratified sample of households from the Haifa metropolitan area in northern Israel. The estimates of welfare change derived by the various methods are discussed and compared. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Suggested Citation

  • Mordechai Shechter, 1991. "A comparative study of environmental amenity valuations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 129-155, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:1:y:1991:i:2:p:129-155
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00310015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00310015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack L. Knetsch & J. A. Sinden, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 507-521.
    2. Gerking, Shelby & Stanley, Linda R, 1986. "An Economic Analysis of Air Pollution and Health: The Case of St. Louis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(1), pages 115-121, February.
    3. Bockstael, Nancy E & McConnell, Kenneth E, 1983. "Welfare Measurement in the Household Production Framework," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 806-814, September.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    5. McConnell, Kenneth E., 1985. "The economics of outdoor recreation," Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics,in: A. V. Kneese† & J. L. Sweeney (ed.), Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 677-722 Elsevier.
    6. Randall, Alan & Stoll, John R, 1980. "Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 449-455, June.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Cropper, M L, 1981. "Measuring the Benefits from Reduced Morbidity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(2), pages 235-240, May.
    9. Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. "Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-184, June.
    10. McMillan, Melville L & Amoako-Tuffour, Joe, 1988. "An Examination of Preferences for Local Public Sector Outputs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(1), pages 45-54, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-597, September.
    13. Harrington, Winston & Portney, Paul R., 1987. "Valuing the benefits of health and safety regulation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 101-112, July.
    14. Loehman, Edna & De, Vo Hu, 1982. "Application of Stochastic Choice Modeling to Policy Analysis of Public Goods: A Case Study of Air Quality Improvements," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 64(3), pages 474-480, August.
    15. Christensen, Laurits R. & Manser, Marilyn E., 1977. "Estimating U.S. consumer preferences for meat with a flexible utility function," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 37-53, January.
    16. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1987. "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521348102.
    17. Jorgenson, Dale W & Slesnick, Daniel T, 1987. "Aggregate Consumer Behavior and Household Equivalence Scales," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 5(2), pages 219-232, April.
    18. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-741, 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. V. Smith & Ju Huang, 1993. "Hedonic models and air pollution: Twenty-five years and counting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(4), pages 381-394, August.
    2. Nir Becker & Mira Baron & Mordechai Shechter, 1993. "Economic instruments for emission abatement under appreciable technological indivisibilities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(3), pages 263-284, June.
    3. F. Butter & H. Verbruggen, 1994. "Measuring the trade-off between economic growth and a clean environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 187-208, April.
    4. Pierre Thomas Léger, 2001. "Willingness to Pay for Improvements in Air Quality," Cahiers de recherche 01-02, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
    5. Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.

    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:kap:enreec:v:1:y:1991:i:2:p:129-155. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    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.