Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective
This paper contrasts the results of the contingent valuation, hedonic price, and property damages avoided valuation techniques. Each technique was used to estimate the value of flood risk reduction from the construction of a flood control project. Voting behavior in a referendum called specifically for the provision of the project was used to further interpret the results from the three valuation studies. Substantial differences were found between the estimates. In explaining these differences an alternative perspective on the current debate over the validity and accuracy of nonmarket value estimates is offered.
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.
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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:4:p:433-449. 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.