Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T19:58:37.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Challenge to Three Widely Held Ideas in Environmental Valuation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Matthew G. Interis
Get access

Abstract

Environmental valuation is the branch of environmental economics in which researchers estimate the economic value of environmental goods and services. Environmental valuation has been practiced for decades. However, there are some ideas in the field of environmental valuation held by many environmental economists and nonenvironmental economists that appear to be outdated. This article discusses three such ideas: 1) that it is better to estimate willingness-to-pay values than willingness-to-accept values; 2) that stated preference valuation methods are questionable because they are based on hypothetical choices rather than real choices; and 3) that it is better to use a repeated-choice question format than a single-choice format in choiceexperiments. We discuss the origins of each idea and why the idea became prevalent in the first place. We then review recent literature, which casts doubt on the idea. We conclude with a reminder for researchers—in environmental economics and in other economic fields—to periodically reassess ideas they currently hold in light of recent research developments and in light of the context in which they are used.

Keywords

:environmental valuationchoice experimentsstated preference methodswillingness to acceptwillingness to pay:QOQ5
Type
Emerging Scholar Papers
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , August 2014 , pp. 347 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., and Louviere, J.. “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998): 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamowicz, W.L. “What’s it Worth? An Examination of Historical Trends and Future Directions in Environmental Valuation.” The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 48(2004): 419-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemu, M.H., Morkbak, M.R., Olsen, S.B., and Jensen, C.L.. “Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-Attendance in Choice Experiments.” Environmental and Resource Economics 54(2013): 333-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Learner, E., Radner, R., and Schumar, H.. “Report of NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58(1993): 4601-14.Google Scholar
Bateman, I.J., Brouwer, R., Ferrini, S., Schaafsma, M., Barton, D.N., Dubgaard, A., Hasler, B., Hime, S., Liekens, I., Navrud, S., Nocker, L.De, Sceponaviciute, R., and Semeniene, D.. “Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across Europe.” Environmental and Resource Economics 50(2011): 365-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, G., Hanley, N., Moro, M., and Rondeau, D.. “Measuring the Local Costs of Conservation: A Provision Point Mechanism for Eliciting Willingness to Accept Compensation.” Land Economics 89(2013): 490–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M., and Wright, J.L.. “Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods.” Land Economics 72(1996): 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, R.T., and Groves, T.. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37(2007): 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, R.T.. “Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions: Commentary and Extensions.” International Handbook of Non Market Environmental Valuation. Bennett, J., ed. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2011.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T., and Louviere, J.J.. “A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches.” Environmental and Resource Economics 49(2011): 539-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champ, P.A., and Bishop, R.C.. “Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19(2001): 383-402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, S.M., Jones-Lee, M.W., McDonald, R.L., and Metcalf, H.R.T.. “Eliciting Reliable Willingness-to-Accept Responses.” White Paper, Newcastle Discussion Papers in Economics.’ ISSN 1361-1837. (2011). Internet site: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/nubs/assets/documents/workingpapers/economics/WP02-2011.pdf (Accessed October 25, 2013).Google Scholar
Cummings, R.D., Brookshire, D.S., and Schultze, W.D., eds. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Roman and Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
Day, B., Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Dupont, D., Louviere, J.J., Morimoto, S., Scarpa, R., and Wang, P.. “Ordering Effects and Choice Set Awareness in Repeat-Response Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63(2012):73—91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de-Magistris, T., Gracia, A., and Nayga, R.M.. “On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95(2013): 1136-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haab, T., Intens, M., Petrolia, D., and Whitehead, J.. “From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s ‘Dubious to Hopeless’ Critique of Contingent Valuation.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 35(2013): 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. “Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?” The American Economic Review 81(1991):635—47.Google Scholar
Herriges, J., Kling, C., Liu, C.-C., and Tobias, J.. “What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59(2010): 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, T.P., and Boyle, K.J.. “Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions.” Land Economics 81(2005): 114-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R.J. “Is Hypothetical Bias Universal? Validating Contingent Valuation Responses Using a Binding Public Referendum.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52(2006): 469-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R.J., and Rosenberger, R.S.. “Methods, Trends, and Controversies in Contemporary Benefit Transfer.” Journal of Economic Surveys 24(2010): 479–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachelmeier, S.J., and Shehata, M.. “Estimating Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People’s Republic of China.” The American Economic Review 82(1992): 1120-10.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., and Thaler, R.H.. “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem.” Journal of Political Economy 98(1990):728-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.. “Prospect Theory: an Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica March(1979) : 263-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaul, A., Boyle, K.J., Kuminoff, N.V., Parmeter, CF., and Pope, J.C.. “What Can We Learn from Benefit Transfer Errors? Evidence from 20 Years of Research on Convergent Validity.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 66(2013):90—104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, J. “Values of Gaines and Losses: Reference States and Choice of Measure.” Environmental and Resource Economics 46(2010): 179-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanz, B., and Provins, A.. “Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income.” Environmental and Resource Economics 56(2013): 105-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J.A., and Gallet, C.A.. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical State Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis.” Environmental and Natural Resource Economics 20(2001):241—54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J.A., Sinha, P., and Taylor, M.H.. “Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 6(2006): 1–39.Google Scholar
Little, J., and Berrens, R.. “Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis.” Economic Bulletin 3(2004): 1—13.Google Scholar
Londoño, L.M., and Johnston, R.J.. “Enhancing the Reliability of Benefit Transfer Over Heterogeneous Sites: A Meta-Analysis of Inter-nation Coral Reef Values.” Ecological Economics 78(2012): 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J.B., and Rosenberger, R.S.. “Reducing Barriers in Future Benefit Transfers: Needed Improvements in Primary Study Design and Reporting.” Ecological Economics 60(2006): 343-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C.. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004): 467-82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R.C. “On Designing Constructed Markets in Valuation Surveys.” Environmental and Resource Economics 22(2002):297—321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, L.W., and Swallow, S.K.. “Real-Payment Choice Experiments: Valuing Forested Wetlands and Spatial Attributes within a Landscape Context.” Ecological Economics 92(2013): 37-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrolia, D., and Interis, M.. “Should We Be Using Repeated-Choice Surveys to Value Public Goods?” Newsletter of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 33(2013): 19–25.Google Scholar
Petrolia, D., Interis, M., and Hwang, J.. “America’s Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands.” Marine Resource Economics 29(2014): 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrolia, D., and Kim, T.. “Preventing Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana: Estimates of WTP and WTA.” Journal of Environmental Management 92(2011): 859-65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Putler, D.S. “Incorporating Reference Price Effects into a Theory of Consumer Choice.” Marketing Science 11(1992): 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheufele, G., and Bennett, J.. “Response Strategies and Learning in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Environmental and Resource Economics 52(2012): 435-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L.O. “The Hedonic Method,” in A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., and Brown, T.C., eds. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar
Vossler, C.A., Doyon, M., and Rondeau, D.. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4(2012): 145-71.Google Scholar
Vossler, C.A., and Watson, S.B.. “Understanding the Consequences of Consequentiality: Testing the Validity of Stated Preferences in the Field.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 86(2013): 137-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, F.A., and Beal, D.. Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models: A Manual. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, J., Haab, T., and Huang, J., eds. Preference Data for Environmental Valuation: Combining Revealed and Stated Approaches. Routledge, New York, New York, USA, 2011.Google Scholar
Willig, R. “Consumer Surplus without Apology.” The American Economic Review 66(1976): 589-97.Google Scholar