Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a LULU: The Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility
This article examines an application of the contingent valuation (CV) method to Abstract measure the compensation required for the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility. First, the risk valuation literature on the siting of a hazardous waste facility is discussed. In this section, the authors discuss past studies using contingent valuation techniques and the importance of subjective risk assessment. Second, a contingent valuation survey is performed to measure willingness to accept (WTA) using a dichotomous choice referendum framework. Using these data, the authors test for the internal consistency of the responses and calculate the WTA for siting a hazardous waste disposal facility. The authors conclude that CV can be used to estimate reasonable measures of WTA and is a potentially useful tool for assessing the compensation required to site a hazardous waste disposal facility.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
|Date of creation:|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (252) 328-6006
Fax: (252) 328-6743
Web page: http://www.econ.ecu.edu/wp/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
- Viscusi, W Kip & Evans, William N, 1990. "Utility Functions That Depend on Health Status: Estimates and Economic Implications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 353-74, June.
- Courant, Paul N. & Porter, Richard C., 1981. "Averting expenditure and the cost of pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 321-329, December.
- Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994.
"Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-70, March.
- Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Staff General Research Papers 701, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Cook, Philip J & Graham, Daniel A, 1977. "The Demand for Insurance and Protection: The Case of Irreplaceable Commodities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 143-56, February.
- Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-47, June.
- Groothuis, Peter A & Miller, Gail, 1997. "The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis: A Study of the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 241-57, December.
- Kerry Smith, V. & Desvousges, William H., 1986. "Averting behavior: Does it exist?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 291-296.
- Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Kristrom, Bengt & Gerdtham, Ulf-G., 1993. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- further results," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 95-108, April.
- John B. Loomis, 1987. "Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimates to Aggregate Benefit Estimates: Current Practices and Proposed Solutions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(4), pages 396-402.
- Viscusi, W Kip, 1989. " Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 235-63, September.
- Timothy J. Bartik, 2008.
"Evaluating the Benefits of Non-marginal Reductions in Pollution Using Information on Defensive Expenditures,"
Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers,
in: Joseph Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), Revealed Preference Approaches to Environmental Valuation, volume 0, pages 459-475
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
- Bartik, Timothy J., 1988. "Evaluating the benefits of non-marginal reductions in pollution using information on defensive expenditures," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 111-127, March.
- Roberts, Roland K. & Douglas, Peggy V. & Park, William M., 1991. "Estimating External Costs Of Municipal Landfill Siting Through Contingent Valuation Analysis: A Case Study," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(02), December.
- Sun, Henglun & Bergstrom, John C. & Dorfman, Jeffrey H., 1992. "Estimating The Benefits Of Groundwater Contamination Control," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(02), December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:eacaec:9709. 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: (Thomas Krichel)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.