Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 419–433 | Cite as

Sequencing and the Adding-up Property in Contingent Valuation of Endangered Species: Are Contingent Non-Use Values Economic Values?

  • Knut Veisten
  • Hans Fredrik Hoen
  • Jon Strand


This paper presents tests of the theoretical validity of the contingent valuation (CV) method. The validity of CV is especially a concern when involving environmental goods with a predominant non-use value. One test of theoretical validity is the adding-up property that implies that a specific good should be equally valued irrespectively of it is being valued directly or built-up sequentially. In this CV study four independent sub-samples stated willingness to pay for the same composite good, or package, using different sequences. One sub-sample valued the composite good directly, while two sub-samples faced built-up sequences valuing first subsets of this composite good. A fourth sub-sample valued the composite good from a dividing-out approach, facing first the valuation of a larger multi-package. Theoretically expected sequencing effects were observed; the subset goods obtained higher values earlier in a sequence, and the dividing-out approach decreased the stated value for the composite good. Most importantly, these CV data did pass the tests of the adding-up property.


adding-up property contingent valuation endangered species non-use sequencing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, K. J., Solow, R., Learner, E., Portney, P., Radner, R., Schuman, H 1993‘Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation’Federal Register5846014614Google Scholar
  2. Bateman, I. J.Willis, K. G. eds. 1999Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU and Developing CountriesOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman, I. J., Cole, M., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Hadley, D., Poe, G.L. 2004‘On Visible Choice Sets and Scope Sensitivity’Journal of Environmental Economics and Management477193Google Scholar
  4. Bjornstad, D. J., Kahn, J. R. 1996The Contingent Valuation of’Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research NeedsEdward ElgarCheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, T. C., Champ, P. A., Bishop, R. C., McCollum, D. W. 1996‘Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?’Land Economics72152166Google Scholar
  6. Carson, R.T., Wilks, L., Imber, D. 1994‘Valuing the Preservation of Australia’s Kakadu Conservation Zone’Oxford Economic Papers46727749Google Scholar
  7. Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C. 1995‘Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys’Journal of Environmental Economics and Management28155173Google Scholar
  8. Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Hanemann, W. M. 1998‘Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods’Journal of Environmental Economics and Management36314323Google Scholar
  9. Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Meade, N. F. 2001‘Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence’Environmental and Resource Economics19173210Google Scholar
  10. Cummings, R. G., Harrison, G. W. 1994‘Was the Ohio Court Well Informed in its Assessment of the Accuracy of the Contingent Valuation Method?’Natural Resource Journal34136Google Scholar
  11. Cummings, R. G., Harrison, G. W. 1995‘The Measurement and Decomposition of Non-use Values: A Critical Review’Environmental and Resource Economics5225247Google Scholar
  12. Diamond, P. 1996‘Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation’Journal of Environmental Economics and Management30337347Google Scholar
  13. Diamond, P. A., Hausman, J. A. 1994‘Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?’Journal of Economic Perspectives84564Google Scholar
  14. Flores, N. E. (1999), ‘The Importance of Agenda and Willingness to Pay’, Working Paper No. 99–30, Center for Economic Analysis, Department of Economics, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
  15. Green, C., Tunstall, S. 1999‘A Psychological Perspective’Bateman, I. J.Willis, K. G. eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU and Developing CountriesOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison, G. W. 1992‘Valuing Public Goods with the Contingent Valuation Method: A Critique of Kahneman and Knetsch’Journal of Environmental Economics and Management23248257Google Scholar
  17. Hausman, J. A. 1993Contingent Valuation: A Critical AssessmentElsevier Science PublishersAmsterdam503Google Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. 1992‘Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction’Journal of Environmental Economics and Management225770Google Scholar
  19. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T. 1989Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation MethodResources for the FutureWashington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Nunes, P. A. L. D., Schokkaert, E. 2003‘Identifying the Warm Glow Effect in Contingent Valuation’Journal of Environmental Economics and Management45231245Google Scholar
  21. Payne, J. W., Schkade, D. A., Desvousges, W.H., Aultman, C. 2000‘Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs’Journal of Risk and Uncertainty2195115Google Scholar
  22. Randall, A. and J. P. Hoehn (1993), ‘Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation’, Staff Paper No. 93-06 (Draft), Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  23. Randall, A., Hoehn, J. P. 1996‘Embedding in Market Demand Systems’Journal of Environmental Economics and Management30369380Google Scholar
  24. Ready, R. C., Buzby, J. C., Hu, D. 1996‘Differences Between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Valuation Estimates’Land Economics72397411Google Scholar
  25. Ready, R. C., Navrud, S., Dubourg, W. R. 2001‘How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?’Land Economics77315326Google Scholar
  26. Schulze, W., McClelland, G., Waldman, D., Lazo, J. 1996‘Sources of Bias in Contingent Valuation’Bjornstad, J.Kahn, J. R. eds. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research NeedsEdward ElgarBrookfield, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, V. K. 1994‘Lightning Rods, Dart Boards and Contingent Valuation’Natural Resources Journal34121152Google Scholar
  28. Turner, R. K. 1999‘The Place of Economic Values in Environmental Valuation’Bateman, I. J.Willis, K. G. eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU and Developing CountriesOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Varian, H. R. 1992Microeconomic AnalysisNorton & CompanyNew York3rdGoogle Scholar
  30. Veisten, K., H. F. Hoen, S. Navrud and J. Strand (2003), ‘Scope Insensitivity in Contingent Valuation of Complex Environmental Amenities’, in K. Veisten, “Valuation of Non-market Forest Products – Methodological and Empirical Studies’’, Ph.D. Thesis (Dr. Scient.), Agricultural University of Norway.Google Scholar
  31. Weber, M., Eisenfuhr, F., Winterfeldt, D. 1988‘The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement’Management Science3431445Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Natural Resource ManagementAgricultural University of NorwayÅsNorway
  2. 2.Institute of Transport EconomicsOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Economics University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations