| Contingent Valuation |
Article Index for Contingent |
Website Links For Valuation |
Information AboutContingent Valuation |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT CONTINGENT VALUATION | |
| environmental economics | |
| evaluation methods | |
|
HISTORY Contingent valuation surveys were first proposed in theory by S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup (1947) as a method for eliciting market Valuation of a non-market Good . The first practical application of the technique was in 1963 when Davis used surveys to estimate the value hunters and tourists placed on a particular wilderness area. He compared the survey results to an estimation of value based on travel costs and found good correlation with his results. The method rose to high prominence in the 1980s when government agencies were given the power to sue for damage to environmental resources which they were trustees over. Following ''Ohio v Department of the Interior'', the types of damages which they were able to recover included non-use or Existence Value s. Existence values are unable to be assessed through market pricing mechanisms so contingent valuation surveys were suggested to assess them. During this time the EPA convened an important conference with an aim to recommend guidelines for survey design. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound was the first case where contingent valuation surveys were used in a quantitative assessment of damages. Use of the technique has spread from there. PAST CONTROVERSIES Many economists question the use of stated preference to determine Willingness To Pay for a good, preferring to rely on people's Revealed Preferences in binding market transactions. Early contingent valuation surveys were often open ended questions of the form "how much compensation would you demand for the destruction of X area" or "how much would you pay to preserve X". Such surveys potentially suffer from a number of shortcomings; strategic behaviour, protest answers, Response Bias and respondents ignoring income constraints Peter A. Diamond; Jerry A. Hausman, 'Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number better than No Number?' ''The Journal of Economic Perspectives'', Vol. 8, No. 4. (Autumn, 1994), pp. 45-64 . Early surveys used in environmental valuation seemed to indicate people were expressing a general preference for environmental spending in their answers, described as the Embedding Effect by detractors of the method. In response to criticisms of contingent valuation surveys, a panel of high profile economists (chaired by Nobel Prize laureates Kenneth Arrow and Robert Solow ) was convened under the auspices of the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1993. The panel heard evidence from 22 expert economists and published its results in 1995. The recommendations of the NOAA panel were that contingent valuation surveys should be carefully designed and controlled due to the inherent difficulties in eliciting accurate economic values through survey methods. The most important recommendations of the NOAA panel were that:
The guiding principle behind these recommendations was that the survey operator has a high Burden Of Proof to satisfy before the results can be seen as meaningful. Surveys meeting these criteria are very expensive to operate and to ameliorate the expense of conducting surveys the panel recommended a set of reference surveys which future surveys could be compared to and calibrated against. The NOAA panel also felt, in general, that conservative estimates of value were to be preferred and one important consequence of this decision is that they recommended contingent valuation surveys measure willingness to pay to protect the good rather than willingness to accept compensation for the loss of the resource. As a result, current contingent valuation methodology corrects for these shortcomings, and current empirical testing indicates that such bias and inconsistency has been successfully addressed.See, for example, Robert Simons and Kimberly Winson-Geideman, Determining Market Perceptions On Contaminated Residential Property Buyers Using Contingent Valuation Surveys, ''Journal of Real Estate Research'' 27-2, 2005, pgs 193-220 CURRENT STATUS As shown by Mundy and McLean (1998), contingent valuation is now widely accepted as a real estate appraisal technique, particularly in contaminated property or other situations where revealed preference models (i.e. -- transaction pricing) fail due to disequilibrium in the market.See, for example, , and John A. Kilpatrick , Summation of Evidentiary Rules for Real Estate Experts Mandated by Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, ''Real Estate Issues'',1999, http://www.greenfieldadvisors.com/publications/sumevid.pdf , and the current standards for use of contingent valuation in litigation situations is described by Diamond (2000). Shari S. Diamond, Reference Guide on Survey Research (2nd), ''Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence'', Federal Judicial Center, 2000 The technique has been widely used by government departments in the US when performing Cost-benefit Analysis of projects impacting, positively or negatively, on the environment. Examples include a valuation of water quality and recreational opportunities in the river downstream from Glen Canyon dam, Biodiversity restoration in the Mono Lake and restoration of Salmon spawning grounds in certain rivers. The technique has also been used in Australia to value areas of the Kakadu National Park Carson, Richard T; Wilks, Leanne; Imber, David "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone" (1994) ''Oxford Economic Papers'', vol. 46(0), pp. 727-49 . REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
Valuation of Environmental Quality Robert K. Niewijk] |
|
|