Estimating Four Hicksian Welfare Measures for a Public Good: A Contingent Valuation Investigation
Using equivalent loss (the monetary loss equivalent to a proposed amenity reduction, EL) and equivalent gain (the gain equivalent to a proposed amenity increase, EG) alongside traditional welfare measures in a contingent valuation study of traffic disamenity, we report an experiment designed to test theoretical explanations of the well-known disparity between compensating surplus and equivalent surplus measures of welfare. No compelling evidence is found in favor of loss aversion as a cause of the disparity. Meanwhile, as valuation measures, the performance of EL is similar to the traditional willingness to pay for a gain, while EG performs poorly.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:76:y:2000:i:3:p:355-373. 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.