IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v72y1996i4p433-449.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Leonard Shabman
  • Kurt Stephenson

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonard Shabman & Kurt Stephenson, 1996. "Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 433-449.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:4:p:433-449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146907
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schmid, A. Allan, 2004. "Economic Analysis And Efficiency In Public Expenditure," Staff Papers 11776, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe & Polasky, Stephen & Gainutdinova, Olesya, 2003. "Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 261-277, June.
    3. Romina Cavatassi, 2004. "Valuation Methods for Environmental Benefits in Forestry and Watershed Investment Projects," Working Papers 04-01, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA).
    4. Gowan, Charles & Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard, 2006. "The role of ecosystem valuation in environmental decision making: Hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the Elwha River," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 508-523, April.
    5. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    6. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    7. Kousky, Carolyn & Shabman, Leonard, 2015. "Understanding Flood Risk Decisionmaking: Implications for Flood Risk Communication Program Design," Discussion Papers dp-15-01, Resources For the Future.
    8. Felix Schlapfer & Anna Roschewitz & Nick Hanley, "undated". "Contingent valuation and real referendum behaviour," Working Papers 2001_8, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    9. Filatova, Tatiana & Parker, Dawn Cassandra & van der Veen, Anne, 2011. "The Implications of Skewed Risk Perception for a Dutch Coastal Land Market: Insights from an Agent-Based Computational Economics Model," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(3), December.
    10. Van Lantz & Ryan Trenholm & Jeff Wilson & William Richards, 2012. "Assessing market and non-market costs of freshwater flooding due to climate change in the community of Fredericton, Eastern Canada," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 347-372, January.
    11. Michel Lang & Bernard Chastan & Frédéric Grelot, 2009. "La méthode Inondabilité : appropriation par les hydrologues de la vulnérabilité dans le diagnostic sur le risque d'inondation," Post-Print hal-00493184, HAL.
    12. David E. Clark & Robert Griffin & Vladimir Novoty, 2005. "Assessing the Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Urban Flood Control: The Role of Locational, Demographic and attitudinal Factors," Working Papers and Research 0503, Marquette University, Center for Global and Economic Studies and Department of Economics.
    13. Schlapfer, Felix & Roschewitz, Anna & Hanley, Nick, 2004. "Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 1-16, November.
    14. Schilizzi, Steven, 1999. "Deciding between development and preservation of a natural asset: a way out of the impasse?," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 124547, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    16. Premachandra Wattage & John Soussan, 2003. "Incorporating Environmental Value and Externality in Project Evaluation as a Sustainability Indicator to evaluate Bangladesh Water Development," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 17(6), pages 429-446, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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: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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.