IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods

Author Info

  • Richard T. Carson
  • Nicholas E. Flores
  • Kerry M. Martin
  • Jennifer L. Wright

Abstract

A literature search provides 83 studies from which 616 comparisons of contingent valuation (CV) to revealed preference (RP) estimates are made. Summary statistics of the CV/RP ratios are provided for the complete dataset, a 5 percent trimmed dataset, and a weighted dataset that gives equal weight to each study rather than each CV/RP comparison. For the complete dataset, the sample mean CV/RP ratio is 0.89 with a 95 percent confidence interval [0.81-0.96] and a median of 0.75. For the trimmed and weighted datasets, these summary statistics are (0.77; [0.74-0.81]; 0.75) and (0.92; [0.81-1.03]; 0.94), respectively. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the CV and RP estimates for the three datasets are 0.78, 0.88, and 0.92.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147159
Download Restriction: A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 72 (1996)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 80-99

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:1:p:80-99
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

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.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. Kalle Seip & Jon Strand, 1992. "Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 91-106, January.
  3. 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 165-77, March.
  4. Bohm, Peter, 1984. "Revealing demand for an actual public good," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 135-151, July.
  5. Hal R. Varian, 1983. "Non-parametric Tests of Consumer Behaviour," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 99-110.
  6. D C Harley & N D Hanley, 1989. "Economic Benefit Estimates for Nature Reserves: Methods and Results," Working Papers Series 89/6, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  7. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
  8. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & Ann Fisher, 1986. "A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods for Estimating Environmental Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 280-290.
  9. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
  10. Christine Seller & John R. Stoll & Jean-Paul Chavas, 1985. "Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 156-175.
  11. Gramlich, Edward M & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1982. "Micro Estimates of Public Spending Demand Functions and Tests of the Tiebout and Median-Voter Hypotheses," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(3), pages 536-60, June.
  12. William J. Vaughan & Clifford S. Russell, 1982. "Valuing a Fishing Day: An Application of a Systematic Varying Parameter Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(4), pages 450-463.
  13. Navrud, StAle & Mungatana, E. D., 1994. "Environmental valuation in developing countries: The recreational value of wildlife viewing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 135-151, November.
  14. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
  15. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Rubinfeld, Daniel L & Shapiro, Perry, 1982. "Micro-Based Estimates of Demand Functions for Local School Expenditures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1183-1205, September.
  16. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-38, May.
  17. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1985. "A Test of the Expected Utility Model: Evidence from Earthquake Risks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(2), pages 369-89, April.
  18. 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.
  19. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
  20. 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.
  21. John, Kun H. & Walsh, Richard G. & Moore, Chester G., 1992. "Comparison of alternative nonmarket valuation methods for an economic assessment of a public program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 179-196, May.
  22. Cummings, R. & Schulze, W. & Gerking, S. & Brookshire, D., 1986. "Measuring the elasticity of substitution of wages for municipal infrastructure: A comparison of the survey and wage hedonic approaches," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 269-276, September.
  23. V. Kerry Smith & Yoshiaki Kaoru, 1990. "Signals or Noise? Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit Estimates," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 419-433.
  24. Wendell Beardsley, 1971. "Bias and Noncomparability in Recreation Evaluation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 47(2), pages 175-180.
  25. Arthur H. Darling, 1973. "Measuring Benefits Generated by Urban Water Parks," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(1), pages 23-34.
  26. Kealy, Mary Jo & Montgomery, Mark & Dovidio, John F., 1990. "Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: Does the nature of the good matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 244-263, November.
  27. Peter Bohm, 1972. "Estimating the demand for public goods: An experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00126, The Field Experiments Website.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

RePEc Biblio mentions

As found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:
  1. > Environmental and Natural Resource Economics > Environmental Economics > Valuation > Contingent valuation method
Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window


Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Access and download statistics

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:1:p:80-99. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.