IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/regstd/v31y1997i6p571-582.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method

Author

Listed:
  • Ian Bateman
  • Ian Langford

Abstract

BATEMAN I. J. and LANGFORD I. H. (1997) Non-users' willingness to pay for a National Park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method, Reg. Studies 31, 571-582. A great deal of the ongoing academic debate concerning the contingent valuation (CV) method has focused upon whether or not the method is suitable for assessing non-use values. This paper presents results from a study examining non-users' values for preserving the Norfolk Broads, a wetland area of recognized international importance, from the threat of saline flooding. Discussion of results centres upon the validity of the CV method for eliciting unbiased estimates of non-use value. A graphical representation of findings from a variety of studies is presented to suggest that such results are logically ordered across goods and valuation scenarios. However, as the paper concludes, logicality and validity are not necessarily synonymous. BATEMAN I. J. et LANGFORD I. H. (1997) La volonte des non-usagers de payer les parcs nationaux: une application et une critique de la methode de l'evaluation des contingents, Reg. Studies 31, 571-582. Beaucoup du debat academique en cours a propos de la methode de l'evaluation des contingents a porte sur si, oui ou non, la methode convient a l'estimation des valeurs qui se rapportent aux non-usagers. Cet article cherche a presenter des resultats qui proviennent d'une etude qui a examine les valeurs aux non-usagers de preserver du risque de l'inondation saline les Norfolk Broads, des terres marecageuses de renommee et d'importance internationales. La discussion des resultats porte sur la validitede la methode de l'evaluation des contingents comme moyen d'obtenir des estimations sans distorsion de la valeur aux non-usagers. A partir desgraphiques, on presente des resultats qui proviennent des etudes diverses dans le but de proposer que de tels resultats sont organises logiquement a travers des scenarios de produits et d'evaluations. Toujours est-il que, comme le demontre la conclusion, la logique et la validite ne sont pas necessairement synonymes. BATEMAN I. J. und LANGFORD I. H. (1997) Die Bereitschaft von Nichtbenutzern, fu¨r einen Nationalpark zu zahlen: Anwendung und Kritik der Kontingenten Bewertungsmethode, Reg. Studies 31, 571-582. Die gegenwa¨rtige akademische Debatte u¨ber die Kontingente Bewertungsmethode (Contingent Valuation CV) konzentriert sich weitgehend auf die Frage, ob die Methode sich zur Feststellung von Nichtnutzungswerten eignet. Der vorliegende Aufsatz stellt Ergebnisse einer Studie vor, die Nichtbenutzerwerte fu¨r die Bewahrung der Norfolk Broads, einem Feuchtgebiet von international anerkannter Bedeutung, vor der Bedrohung durch U¨berflutung mit Salzwasser zu bewahren. Im Mittelpunkt der Diskussion der Ergebnisse steht die Zuverla¨ssigkeit der CV Methode zur Gewinnung unvoreingenommener Scha¨tzungen des Nichtbenutzerwertes. Es wird eine graphische Darstellung von Befunden verschiedener Studien vorgelegt, die darauf schliessen lassen, dass solche Ergebnisse u¨ber Gu¨ter- und Bewertungsscenarios hinweg logisch geordnet erscheinen. Wie der Aufsatz schlussfolgert, sind jedoch Logik und Zuverla¨ssigkeit nicht unbedingt synonym.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian Bateman & Ian Langford, 1997. "Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 571-582.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:regstd:v:31:y:1997:i:6:p:571-582
    DOI: 10.1080/00343409750131703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343409750131703
    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.

    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:taf:regstd:v:31:y:1997:i:6:p:571-582. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CRES20 .

    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.