The Regrettable Necessity of Contingent Valuation
Ordinary markets allow parties, not the state, to value property and projects. But they do not account for subjective value in such traditional contexts as condemnation. An awareness of these nonmarket values helps overcome any categorical opposition to the use of the contingent valuation method (CVM) to value cultural and environmental resources. But accurate CVM should measure all values, positive or negative, tononowners; it should apply generally to any substitute projects; and it should seek to account for diminishing marginal value of additional resource units. CVM should be used only to aggregate nonmarket preferences, not to skew the political debate to cultural or environmental objectives. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
- W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:27:y:2003:i:3:p:259-274. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.