Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:50:47.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Issues in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

V. Kerry Smith
V. Kerry Smith*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Get access

Extract

The use of survey or contingent valuation methods to estimate an individual's valuation of non-marketed goods, especially environmental resources, has attracted increasing attention in recent years. Initially, research efforts in this area were viewed by a majority of the economics profession with considerable skepticism. However, with the increased need for information on individuals’ valuation of a whole range of environmental resources and limitations on the ability of indirect market-based methods for valuing all of these resources, there has been a substantial increase in the use of contingent valuation methods to provide this information. Indeed, a recent state-of-the-art assessment (see Cummings et al. [1984]) of the contingent valuation method (CVM) has been able to develop a set of reference operating conditions under which it was reasonable to expect the CVM approach would yield estimates with accuracy that was approximately comparable to the indirect methods. Clearly the definition of these conditions is a judgmental one. Nonetheless, it was based on a substantial number of comparative studies evaluating the relationship between CVM and indirect market estimates of the benefits associated with changes in specific environmental resources. Moreover, it does reflect the changing attitude toward the CVM approach. It is therefore particularly appropriate to consider new directions in the development of the contingent valuation method.

Type
Research Article
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , April 1985 , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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.)

Footnotes

Partial support for this research was provided under Cooperative Agreement No. CR-811075 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views expressed are the author's and not the funding institution.

References

Axelrod, Myril D., “10 Essentials for Good Qualitative Research” in Higginbotham, J. B. and Cox, K. K., editors, Focus Group Interviews: A Reader (Chicago: American Marketing Association), 1979.Google Scholar
Bellenger, D. N., Bernhardt, K. L. and Goldstucker, J. L., “Qualitative Research Techniques: Focus Group Interviews” in Higginbotham, J. B. and Cox, K. K., editors, Focus Group Interviews: A Reader (Chicago: American Marketing Association), 1979.Google Scholar
Bishop, Richard C. and Heberlein, Thomas A., “Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (1979):926–930.Google Scholar
Buggie, Frederick D., “Focus Groups: Search for the ‘Right Product’,” Management Review (1983):39–41.Google Scholar
Calder, Bobby J., “Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing Research 14 (1977):353–364.Google Scholar
Carson, Richard T., Casterline, Gary L., and Mitchell, Robert C., “A Note on Testing and Correcting for Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys,” Discussion Paper No. D-116, Resources for the Future, 1984.Google Scholar
Cummings, Ronald G., Brookshire, David S. and Schulze, William D., Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, draft monograph, University of New Mexico, 1984.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael, “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984):332–341.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael, “Statistical Issues in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation Studies,” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, this issue.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, Dale W., forthcoming, “Econometric Methods for Modeling Producer Behavior” in Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. III edited by Griliches, Z. and Intrilligator, M. (Amsterdam: North Holland).Google Scholar
Leamer, Edward E., Specification Searches: Ad Hoc Inferences With Non Experimental Data (New York: John Wiley & Sons), 1978.Google Scholar
Leamer, Edward E., “Let's Take the Con out of Econometrics,” American Economic Review 73 (1983):31–43.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N., “The Rhetoric of Economics,” Journal of Economic Literature 21 (1983):481–517.Google Scholar
Powell, Alan A., Empirical Analytics of Demand Systems (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath Company), 1974.Google Scholar
Thayer, M. A., “Contingent Valuation Techniques for Assessing Environmental Impacts: Further Evidence,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8 (1981):27–44.Google Scholar
Wallace, T. Dudley, “Pretest Estimation in Regression: A Survey,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59 (1977):431–443.Google Scholar
Ziemer, Rod F., “Reporting Econometric Results: Believe It or Not?,” Land Economics 60 (1984):122–127.Google Scholar