Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contingent Valuation in Practice

  • Chapter
A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation

Part of the book series: The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources ((ENGO,volume 3))

Abstract

Contingent valuation is a survey-based methodology for eliciting values people place on goods, services, and amenities. The first contingent valuation study was conducted by Davis (1963) to estimate the value of big game hunting in Maine. A decade later, Hammack and Brown (1974) applied contingent valuation to valuing waterfowl hunting. Simultaneously, an application to valuing visibility in the Four Corners region of the Southwest represented a turning point after which contingent valuation gained recognition as a methodology for estimating Hicksian surplus for public goods (Randall, Ives, and Eastman 1974). Contingent valuation filled a substantial void by providing a way to estimate values when markets do not exist and revealed preference methods are not applicable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adamowicz, W., J. Swait, P. Boxall, J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1997. Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(1):65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahearn, M., D. Hellerstein, and K. J. Boyle. 2003. Designing a Contingent-Valuation Study to Estimate the Benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program on Grassland Bird Populations. In The Contingent-Valuation Handbook. Edited by J. Kahn, D. Bjornstad, and A. Alberini. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elger (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., T. C. Brown, and L. H. Rosenthal. 1996. Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(1):43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., L. H. Rosenthal, and T. C. Brown. 2000. Effects of Perceived Fairness on Willingness to Pay. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30(12):2439–2450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberini, A. 1995a. Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(3):287–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberini, A. 1995b. Willingness-to-Pay Models of Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Survey Data. Land Economics 71(1):83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberini, A., K. J. Boyle, and M. P. Welsh. 2003. Analysis of Contingent Valuation Data with Multiple Bids and Response Options Allowing Respondents to Express Uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberini, A., M. Cropper, T. Fu, A. Krupnick, J. Liu, D. Shaw, and W. Harrington. 1997. Valuing Health Effects of Air Pollution in Developing Countries: The Case of Taiwan. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34(2):107–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberini, A., and A. Krupnick. 2000. Cost-of-Illness and Willingness-to-Pay Estimates of Improved Air Quality: Evidence from Taiwan. Land Economics 76(1):37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J. 1989. Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charith and Richardian Equivalence. Journal of Political Economy 97(6):1447–1458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I. J., I. H. Langford, R. K. Turner, K. G. Willis, and G. D. Garrod. 1995. Elicitation and Truncation Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies. Ecological Economics 12(2):161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. 1981. Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Howard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belsey, D.A., E. Kuh, and R.E. Welsch. 1980. “Regression Diagnostics.”. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, J. C, J. R. Stoll, and A. Randall. 1990. The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(3):614–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrens, R. P., H. Jenkins-Smith, A. K. Bohara, and C. L. Silva. 2002. Further Investigation of Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Fair Share, Time of Contribution and Respondent Uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(1):144–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrens, R P., A. K. Bohara, H. Jenkins-Smith, C. L. Silva, P. Ganderton, and D. Brookshire. 1998. Joint Investigation of Public Support and Public Values: Case of Instream Flows in New Mexico. Ecological Economics 27(2):189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrens, R., A. Bohara, and J. Kerkvliet. 1997. A Randomized Response Approach to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(1):252–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrens, R. P., D. Brookshire, P. Ganderton, and M. McKee. 1998. Exploring Nonmarket Values for the Social Impacts of Environmental Policy Change. Resource and Energy Economics 20(2):117–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R.C. 1982. Option Value: An Exposition and Extension. Land Economics 58(1):1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R. C, and T. A. Heberlein. 1979. Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(5):926–930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blarney, R. K., J. W. Bennett, and M. D. Morrison. 1999. Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys. Land Economics 75(1):126–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohara, A. K., J. Kerkvliet, and R. Berrens. 2003. Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: A Monte Carlo Simulation. Environmental and Resource Economics (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohara, A. M. McKee, R. P. Berrens, H. Jenkins-Smith, C. L. Silva, and D. S. Brookshire. 1998. Effect of Total Cost and Group-Size Information on Willingness to Pay Responses: Open Ended vs. Dichotomous Choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35(2):142–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J. 1989. Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions. Land Economics 65(1):57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., and R. C. Bishop. 1988. Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1):20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., R. C. Bishop, and M. P. Welsh. 1985. Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games. Land Economics 61(2):188–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., W. H. Desvousges, F. R. Johnson, R. W. Dunford, and S. P. Hudson. 1994. An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27(1):64–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., F. R. Johnson, and D. W. McCollum. 1997. Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(5):1495–1500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., F. R. Johnson, D. W. McCollum, W. H. Desvousges, R. W. Dunford, and S. P. Hudson. 1996. Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses. Land Economics 72(3):381–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., H. F. MacDonald, H. Cheng, and D. W. McCollum. 1998. Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions. Land Economics 74(1):49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., M. M. Morrison, and L. O. Taylor. 2002. Provision Rules and the Incentive Capability of Choice Surveys. Unpublished Manuscript, Georgia State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., P. P. Welsh, and R. C. Bishop. 1993. The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25(1, Part 2):580–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. C, P. A. Champ, R. C. Bishop, and D. W. McCollum. 1996. Which Response Format Reveals the Truth About Donations to a Public Good. Land Economics 72(2):152–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. A. 1992. Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods. Land Economics 68(3):302–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. A., and D. D. Huppert. 1989. OLS Versus ML Estimation of Non-market Resource Values with Payment Card Interval Data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17(3):230–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T A., W. D. Shaw, and S. R. Ragland. 1999. Nonresponse Bias in Maine Survey Data: Salience vs. Endogenous Survey Complexity. In Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by J. A. Herriges, and K. L. Kling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., and R. A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T. 1997. Contingent Valuation Surveys and Test for Insensitivity to Scope. In Determining the Value of Non-marketed Goods: Economics, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. Edited by R. J. Kopp, W. W. Pommerehne, and N. Schwarz (eds.). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., T. Groves, and M. Machina. 2000. Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Unpublished paper, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. Kopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud, and V. K. Smith. 1998. Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel’s No-Vote Recommendation. Review of Economics and Statistics 80(3):484–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. Kopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud, V. K. Smith, M. Conaway, and K. Martin. 1997. Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation. Land Economics 73(2):151–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champ, P. A., R. C. Bishop, T. C. Brown, and D. W. McCollum. 1997. Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33(2):151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. C. 1993. Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24(1):25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. C. 1994. A Comparison of Approaches to Calculating Confidence Intervals for Benefit Measures from Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys. Land Economics 70(1):111–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creel, M., and J. Loomis. 1997. Semi-nonparametric Distribution Free Dichotomous Choice CV. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(3):341–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R. G., D. S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schulze (eds.) 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R. G., G. Harrison, S. Elliot, and J. Murphy. 1997. Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? Journal of Political Economy 105(3):609–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R. G., and L. O. Taylor. 1998. Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys? Land Economics 74(2):203–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. K. 1963. Recreation Planning as an Economic Problem. Natural Resources Journal 3(3):239–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. D., and C. A. Holt. 1993. Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges, W. H, F. R. Johnson, R. W. Dunford, S. P. Hudson, K. N. Wilson, and K. J. Boyle. 1993. Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability. In Contributions to Economic Analysis. Edited by J. A. Hausman. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.B.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges, W. H., V. K. Smith, and A. Fisher. 1987. Option Price Estimates for Water Quality Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for the Monongahela River. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14:248–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, M., A. Fisher, and S. Gerking. 1987. Market Transactions and Hypothetical Demand Data: A Comparative Study. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82(3):69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, M., and S. Gerking. 1996. Formation of Risk Beliefs, Joint Production and Willingness to Pay to Avoid Skin Cancer. The Review of Economics and Statistics 78(3):451–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, J., C. Neher, and T. Brown. 1992. Recreation Benefits of Instream Flow: Application to Montana’s Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers. Water Resources Research 28(9):2169–2181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, J. W., and D. A. Paterson. 1991. Field Testing Existence Values: An Instream Flow Trust Fund for Montana Rivers. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Economics Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. F., and G. D. Anderson. 1987. Overlooked Biases in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Some Considerations. Land Economics 63(2):168–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethier, R. G., G. L. Poe, W. D. Schulze, and J. Clark. 2000. A Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Value Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs. Land Economics 76(1):54–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischoff, B., and L. Furby. 1988. Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1:147–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores, N. E., and R. T. Carson. 1997. The Relationship between the Income Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33(3):287–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, W., and R. E. Just. 1989. Measuring Welfare Effects of Product Contamination with Consumer Uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17(3):266–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, A. M. III. 1986. On Assessing the State of the Arts of the Contingent Valuation Method of Valuing Environmental Change. In Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Edited by R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schulze. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, A. M. III. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabor, A., and C. W. J. Granger. 1966. Price as an Indicator of Quality. Economica 33:43–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green D., K. Jacowitz, D. Kahneman, and D. McFadden. 1998. Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20(2):85–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenley, D. A., R. G. Walsh, and R. A. Young. 1981. Option Value: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Recreation and Water Quality. Quarterly Journal of Economics 96(4):657–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habb, T. C, J. C. Huang, and J. C. Whitehead. 1999. Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? A Comment. Journal of Political Economy 107(1):186–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Haab, T. C, and K. E. McConnell. 1998. Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay. Land Economics 74(2):216–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen, B., and K. Sœlensminde. 1998. Differences Between Willingness-to-Pay Estimates from Open-Ended and Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Methods: The Effects of Heteroskedasticity. Land Economics 74(2):262–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammack, J., and G. M. Brown, Jr. 1974. Waterfowl and Wetlands: Towards Bioeconomic Analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W. M. 1984. Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3):332–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W. M. 1994. Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4):19–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W. M, J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen. 1991. Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(1):1255–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A. (ed.) 1993. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers BV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellerstein, D., and K. Boyle. 2002. Single Bounded versus Multiple Bounded Estimators: Some Evidence on Efficiency Gains. Unpublished paper Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herriges, J. A., and J. F. Shogren. 1996. Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-up Questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30:112–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn, J. P., and J. B. Loomis. 1993. Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25(1, Part 1):5–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn, J. P., and A. Randall. 1987. A Satisfactory Benefit-Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14:226–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T. P., and R. A. Kramer. 1995. An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29(1):121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T. P., and K. J. Boyle. 2002. Dynamic Bid Anchoring and Sequential Policy Interactions: Evidence from an Attribute-Based Dichotomous Choice Experiment. Unpublished paper, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Research Triangle Park, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., and V. K. Smith. 1998. “Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods.” Land Economics 74(2):186–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J., S. K. Swallow, and T. F. Weaver. 1999. Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38(1):97–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanninen, B. J. 1993a. Design of Sequential Experiments for Contingent Valuation Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25(1):S1–S11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanninen, B. J. 1993b. Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Land Economics 69(2):138–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanninen, B. J. 1995. Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(1):114–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kealy, M. J., J. F. Dovidio, and M. L. Rockel. 1988. Accuracy in Valuation is a Matter of Degree. Land Economics 64(2):158–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kealy, M. J., M. Montgomery, and J. F. Dovidio. 1990. Reliability and Predictive Validity of Contingent Values: Does the Nature of the Good Matter? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19(3):244–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kealy, M. J., and R. W. Turner. 1993. A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(2):321–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, C. 1997. The Gains from Combining Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Data to Value Nonmarket Goods. Land Economics 73(3):428–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, C. L. 1991. Estimating the Precision of Welfare Measures. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21(3):244–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotchen, M. J., and S. D. Reiling. 1999. Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constrains Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates? Another Comment. Land Economics 75(3):478–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriström, B. 1990. A Non-parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies. Land Economics 66(2):135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriström, B. 1997. Spike Models in Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(3):1013–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. Z. 1996. Semiparametric Estimation of the Binary Choice Model for Contingent Valuation. Land Economics 72(4):462–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. Z., and L. Mattsson. 1995. Discrete Choice Under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(2):256–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B. 1989. Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(1):76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B. 1990. Comparative Reliability of the Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Techniques. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18(1):78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B., and P. H. duVair. 1993. Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment. Land Economics 69(3):287–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J., and M. King. 1994. Comparison of Mail and Telephone-Mail Contingent Valuation Surveys. Journal of Environmental Management 41(4):309–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunander, A. 1998. Inducing Incentives to Understate and to Overstate Willingness to Pay within the Open-Ended and Dichotomous-Choice Elicitation Formats: An Experimental Study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35(1):88–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannesto, G., and J. B. Loomis. 1991. Evaluation of Mail and In-Person Contingent Value Surveys: Results of a Study of Recreational Boaters. Journal of Environmental Management 32:177–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marwell, G., and R. E. Ames. 1981. Economists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else? Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. Journal of Public Economics 15(3):295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, K. E. 1990. Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18(1):19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, R. E., Q. Weninger, and I. Strand. 1999. Joint Estimation of Contingent Valuation and Truncated Recreational Demands. In Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by J. A. Herriges and C. L. Kling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C, and R. T. Carson. 1981. An Experiment in Determining Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements. Unpublished report, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C, and R. T. Carson. 1985. Comment on Option Value: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Recreation and Water Quality. Quarterly Journal of Economics 100:291–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C, and R. T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C, and R. T. Carson. 1993. The Value of Clean Water: The Public’s Willingness-to-Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality Water. Water Resources Research 29(7):2445–2454.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1993. Natural Resource Damage Assessments under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Federal Register 58:4601–4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, T, J. Loomis, and M. Creel. 1991. Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefit Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies. Land Economics 67(1):64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poe, G. L., and R. C. Bishop. 1999. Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection When Exposure Levels are Known. Environmental and Resource Economics 13(3):347–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poe, G. L., and R. C. Bishop. 2001. Information and the Valuation of Nitrates in Ground Water, Portage County, Wisconsin. In The Economic Value of Water Quality. Edited by Bergstrom, J. C, K. J. Boyle, and G. L. Poe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J. R., D. S. Allee, and C. McClintook. 1994. Groundwater Protection Benefits and Local Government Planning. Impact of Contingent Valuation Information. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(5):1068–1075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A. 1998. Beyond the Crucial Experiment: Mapping the Performance Characteristics of Contingent Valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 20(2):197–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A., and J. P. Hoehn. 1996. Embedding in Market Demand Systems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(3):369–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A., B. Ives, and C. Eastman. 1974. Bidding Games for Evaluation of Aesthetic Environmental Improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1:132–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ready, R. C, J. C. Buzby, and D. Hu. 1996. Differences Between Continuous and Discrete Estimates. Land Economics 72(3):397–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ready, R. C, J. C. Whitehead, and G. C. Bloomquist. 1995. Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29(2):178–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiling, S. D., K. J. Boyle, M. L. Phillips, and M. W. Anderson. 1990. Temporal Reliability of Contingent Values. Land Economics 66(2):128–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, B., K. J. Boyle, and M. P. Welsh. 2002. Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple Bounded Contingent Valuation. Land Economics Vol 78(1):121–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, B., K. J. Boyle, and M. F. Teisl. 1996. Deriving Estimates of Compensation Variation from Conjoint Data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(2):145–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, R. D., R. C. d’Arge, and D. S. Brookshire. 1980. An Experiment on the Economic Value of Visibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7:1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, R. D., W. D. Schulze, and W. S. Breffle. 1996. A Test for Payment Card Biases. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(2):178–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salant, P., and D. A. Dillman. 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samples, K. C, J. A. Dixon, and M. M. Gowen. 1986. Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation. Land Economics 62(3):306–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D. A., and J. W. Payne. 1994. How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(1):88–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneemann, M. 1997. A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates to Contingent Valuation Surveys Conducted by Mail. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of Maine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H. 1996. The Sensitivity of CV Outcomes to CV Survey Methods. In The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Edited by D. Bjornstad and J. Kahn. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A. 1965. The Valuation of Game Resources: Some Theoretical Aspects. Canadian Fisheries Report, iv, Department of Fisheries of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabman, L., and K. Stephenson. 1996. Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective. Land Economics 72(4):433–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B. P. 1968. The Psychology of Pricing. Harvard Business Review 46(7):14–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K. 1993. Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal. Land Economics 69(1):1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L., G. L. Suchanek, and A. W. Williams. 1988. Bubbles, Crashes and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets. Econometrica 56:1119–1151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, T. H., N. E. DeCoteau, and C. E. Willis. 1997. Sensitivity of Contingent Valuation to Alternative Payment Schedules. Land Economics 73(1):140–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, T. H., T. A. More, and R. J. Glass. 1994. Interpretation and Temporal Stability of CV Bids for Wildlife Existence: A Panel Study. Land Economics 70(3):355–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teisl, M. F., K. J. Boyle, D. W. McCollum, and S. D. Reiling. 1995. Test-Retest Reliability of Contingent Valuation with Independent Sample Pretest and Post-Test Control Groups. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(3):613–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teisl, M. F., B. Roe and R. D. Hicks. 2002. Can Eco-labels Tuna Market? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43(3):339–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, M. 1981. Contingent Valuation Techniques for Assessing Environmental Impacts: Further Evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8:27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, K. L., and J. W. Duffield. 1992. Natural Resource Damages: Law and Economics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, M. P., and G. L. Poe. 1998. Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36(2):170–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, J., and G. Bloomquist. 1995. Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates? Comment. Land Economics 71(4):541–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, D., J. Vase, M. P. Donnell, and D. S. Dernier. 1998. Mail versus Telephone Surveys: Potential Biases in Expenditures and Willingness-to-Pay Data. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 15(3):15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadov, M. S. 1994. How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A Model of Anchoring and Adjustments. Journal of Consumer Research 21:342–353.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maine, USA

    Kevin J. Boyle

Authors
  1. Kevin J. Boyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Patricia A. Champ  & Thomas C. Brown  & 

  2. Department of Resource Economics & Policy, University of Maine, USA

    Kevin J. Boyle (Libra Professor of Environmental Economics) (Libra Professor of Environmental Economics)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boyle, K.J. (2003). Contingent Valuation in Practice. In: Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C. (eds) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1445-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0826-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation