Methods for Valuing Environmental Costs and Benefits

  • Nick Hanley
  • Jason F. Shogren
  • Ben White
Chapter
Part of the Macmillan Texts in Economics book series (PTE)

Abstract

The previous chapter was concerned with an analysis of the theory behind the non-market economic value of the environment. This chapter, in contrast, is concerned with an analysis of methods for obtaining empirical estimates of environmental values, such as the benefits of improved river water quality, or the costs of losing an area of wilderness to development. By necessity, this chapter can only discuss briefly the many issues involved in what is now a vast literature. Excellent surveys of this literature can be found in Braden and Kolstad (1991) and Smith (1993).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdulla, C, B. Roach and D. Epp (1992) 'Valuing environmental quality changes using averting expenditures', Land Economics, 68, 163-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994) 'Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271-92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, J. Louviere, J. Swait and M. Williams (1994) 'Stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities', mimeo, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  4. Bartik, T. (1988) 'Evaluating the benefits of non-marginal reductions in pollution using information on defensive expenditures', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15, 111-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman, I. and K. Willis (eds) (1995) Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bergstrom, J., J. Stoll and A. Randall (1989) 'Information effects in contingent markets', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, 685-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishop, R, and T. Heberlein (1979) 'Measuring values of extra market goods: Are indirect measures biased?', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(5), 926-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bishop, R. and M. Welsh (1992) 'Existence values in benefit-cost analysis', Land Economics, 68, 405-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blomquist, G. (1979) 'Value of life saving: Implications of consumption activity', Journal of Political Economy, 87, 540-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bockstael, N., M. Hanemann and C. Kling (1987) 'Estimating the value of water quality improvements', Water Resources Research, 23, 951-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bockstael, N, K. McConnell and I. Strand (1991) 'Recreation', in J. Braden and C. Kolstad (eds), Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Bowes, M. and J. Krutilla (1989) Multiple Use Management: the Economics of Public Forestlands, Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  13. Boyle, K, R. Bishop and M. Welsh (1986) 'Starting point bias in contingent valuation surveys', Land Economics, 61, 188-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braden, J. and C. Kolstad (1991) Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Brookshire, D., B. Ives and W. Schulze (1976) 'The valuation of aesthetic preferences', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 3(4), 325-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brookshire, D., R. d'Arge, W. Schulze and M. Thayer (1981) 'Experiments in valuing public goods', in V.K. Smith (ed.), Advances in Applied Microeconomics, (Vol. 1), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  17. Brookshire, D.S., M.A. Thayer, J. Tschirhart and W. Schulze (1985) 'A test of the expected utility model: Evidence from earthquake risk', Journal of Political Economy, 93, 369-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown G, and R. Mendelsohn (1984) 'The hedonic travel cost model', Review of Economics and Statistics, 66, 427-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burt, O. and D. Brewer (1974) 'Estimation of net social benefits from outdoor recreation', Econometrica, 39, 813-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cambridge Economics (1992) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Economics.Google Scholar
  21. Cameron, T. (1988) 'A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15, 355-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carson, R., N. Flores and M. Hanemann (1992) 'On the nature of compensable value in a natural resource damage assessment', paper to ASSA conference, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  23. Carson, R., L. Wilks and D. Imber (1994) 'Valuing the preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone', Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 725-49.Google Scholar
  24. Caulkins, P., R. Bishop, and N. Bouwes (1986) 'The travel cost model for lake recreation: a comparison of two methods for incorporating site quality and substitution effects', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May, 291-7.Google Scholar
  25. Chevas, J.P., J. Stoll and C. Sellar (1989) 'On the commodity value of travel time in recreational activities', Applied Economics, 21, 711-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clawson, M. and J. Knetsch (1966) Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Cooper, J. (1993) 'Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24(1), 25-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cooper, J. and J. Loomis (1992) 'Sensitivity of WTP estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation', Land Economics, 68(2), 211-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Courant, P. and R. Porter (1981) 'Averting expenditures and the cost of pollution', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 8, 321-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Coyne, A. and W. Adamowicz (1992) 'Modelling choice of site for hunting bighorn sheep', Wildlife Society Bulletin, 20, 26-33.Google Scholar
  31. Cropper, M., L. Deck and K. McConnell (1988) 'On the choice of functional form for hedonic price functions', Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, 668-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cummings, R., D. Brookshire and W. Schulze (1986) Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld.Google Scholar
  33. Dardin, R. (1980) 'The value of life: new evidence from the marketplace', American Economic Review, 70, 1077-82.Google Scholar
  34. Davis, R. (1963) 'Recreation planning as an economic problem', Natural Resources Journal, 3(2), 239-49.Google Scholar
  35. Desvouges, W., F. Johnson, R. Dunford, K. Boyle, S. Hudson and K. Wilson (1992) 'Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability', in Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Economics.Google Scholar
  36. Diamond, P., J. Hausman, G. Leonard and M. Denning (1992) 'Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence', in Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Economics.Google Scholar
  37. Dickie, M., A. Fisher and S. Gerking (1987) 'Market transactions and hypothetical demand data: a comparative study', Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 69-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Duffield, J. and D. Patterson (1991a) 'Inference and optimal design for a wildlife measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation', Land Economics, 67(2), 225-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Duffield, J. and D. Patterson (1991b) 'Field testing existence values: an instream flow trust fund for Montana rivers', paper presented to American Economics Association Conference, New Orleans, Jan.Google Scholar
  40. Ecotec (1993) A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reduced Acid Deposition: A Contingent Valuation Study of the Aquatic Ecosystems, Working Paper 5, Birmingham: Ecotec.Google Scholar
  41. Ellis, G. and A. Fisher (1987) 'Valuing the environment as input', Journal of Environmental Management, 25, 149-56.Google Scholar
  42. Englin, J. and R. Mendelsohn (1991) 'A hedonic travel costs analysis for the valuation of multiple components of site quality: the recreation value of forest management', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 21, 275-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Evans, R. and F. Harris (1982) 'A Bayesian analysis of the free rider meta-game', Southern Economic Journal, 49, 137-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Federal Register (1933) 'Report of the NOAA panel on Contingent Valuation', Washington, D.C.: US Govt., 58(10), 4601-14.Google Scholar
  45. Federal Register (1994) 'Natural resource damage assessment: proposed rules', 59(5), 1062-91. Washington, D.C.: US Govt.Google Scholar
  46. Fletcher, J., W. Adamowicz and T. Graham-Tomasi (1990) 'The travel cost model of recreation demand', Leisure Sciences, 12, 119-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Fox, J., J. Shogren, D. Hayes and J. Kliebenstein (1994) 'Calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets', mimeo, Dept. of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming.Google Scholar
  48. Garrod, G. and K. Willis (1992) 'The amenity value of woodland in Great Britain', Environmental and Resource Economics, 2(4), 415-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Graves, P., J. Murdoch, M. Thayer and D. Waldman (1988) 'The robustness of hedonic price estimation: urban air quality', Land Economics, 64(3), 220-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Greene, W. (1990) Econometric Analysis, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Hammack, J. and G. Brown (1974) Waterfowl and Wetlands: Towards Bioeconomic Analysis, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Hanemann, M. (1984) 'Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hanley, N. (1988) 'Using contingent valuation to value environmental improvements', Applied Economics, 20, 541-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hanley, N. (1989) 'Valuing rural recreation benefits: An empirical comparison of two approaches', Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40(3), 361-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hanley, N. and A. Munro (1994) 'The effects of information in contingent markets for environmental goods', Discussion Papers in Ecological Economics, no. 94/5, University of Stirling.Google Scholar
  56. Hanley, N. and R. Ruffell (1993a) 'The contingent valuation of forest characteristics: two experiments', Journal of Agricultural Economics, 44, 218-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hanley, N. and R. Ruffell (1993b) 'The valuation of forest characteristics', in W. Adamowicz and W. White (eds), Forestry and the Environment: Economic Perspectives, Oxford: CAB International.Google Scholar
  58. Hanley, N. and C. Spash (1993) Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  59. Harrington, W. and P. Portney (1987) 'Valuing the benefits of health and safety regulation', Journal of Urban Economics, 22: 101-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hoehn, J. and A. Randall (1987) 'A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14(3), 226-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hoevenagel, R. (1990) 'The validity of the contingent valuation method: Some aspects on the basis of three Dutch studies', paper to the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists conference, Venice.Google Scholar
  62. Hof, J. and D. King (1982) 'On the necessity of simultaneous recreation demand equation estimation', Land Economics, 58, 547-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jones-Lee, M., M. Hammerton and P. Philips (1985) 'The value of safety: results from a national sample survey', Economic Journal, 95: 49-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kahn, J. (1991) 'Atrazine pollution and Chesapeake fisheries', in N. Hanley (ed.), Farming and the Countryside: an economic analysis of external costs and benefits, Oxford: CAB International.Google Scholar
  65. Kahneman, D. and J. Knetsch (1992) 'The purchase of moral satisfaction', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979) 'Prospect theory: an analysis of decision taking under risk', Econometrica, 47(2), 263-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kahneman, D., J. Knetsch and R. Thaler (1991) 'The endowement effect, loss aversion and status quo bias', Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193-206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kanninen, B. and B. Kristrom (1993) 'Sensitivity of WTP estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice valuation models: comment', Land Economics, 69(2), 199-202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kask, S. and S. Maani (1992) 'Uncertainty, information and hedonic pricing', Land Economics, 68(2), 170-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Knetsch, J. (1989) 'The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves', American Economic Review, December 1277-84.Google Scholar
  71. Knetsch, J. (1993) 'The reference point and measures of welfare change', paper to Canadian Conference on Environmental and Resource Economics, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  72. Knetsch, J. and J. Sinden (1984) 'Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94(3), 507-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kristrom, B. (1990) 'A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies', Land Economics, 66, 135-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lancaster, K. (1966) 'A new approach to consumer theory', Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lareau, T. and D. Rae (1987) 'Valuing willingnes to pay for diesel reduction odours', Southern Economic Journal, 728-42.Google Scholar
  76. Larson, D. (1992) 'Further results on willingness to pay for nonmarket goods', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 23(2), 101-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Laughland, A., W. Musser and L. Musser (1991) 'An experiment on the reliability of contingent valuation', Staff Paper 202, Department of Agricultural Economics, Penn State University.Google Scholar
  78. Layard, R. (1972) Cost-Benefit Analysis, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  79. Lichtenstein, S., P. Slovic, B. Fischoff, M. Layman, and B. Combs (1978) 'Judged frequency of lethal events', Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(6), 551-78.Google Scholar
  80. Loomis, J. (1989) 'Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, February, 77-84.Google Scholar
  81. Loomis, J., C. Sorg and D. Donnelly (1986) 'Economic losses to recreational fisheries due to small head hydro development', Journal of Environmental Management, 22, 85-94.Google Scholar
  82. Madalla, F. (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in economic analysis, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. McFadden, D. (1974) 'Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour', in P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  84. McFadden, D. (1986) 'The choice theory approach to market research', Marketing Science, 5, 275-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Milon, J. (1989) 'Contingent valuation experiments for strategic behaviour', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17, 293-308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mitchell, R. and R. Carson (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method, Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  87. Murdoch, J. and M. Thayer (1988) 'Hedonic price estimation of variable urban air quality', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15, 143-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. O'Byrne, P, J. Nelson and J. Seneca (1985) 'Housing values, census estimates, disequilibrium and the environmental cost of airport noise', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 12, 169-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Palmquist, R. (1991) 'Hedonic methods', in J. Braden and C. Kolstad (eds), Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  90. Randall, A., B. Ives and C. Eastman (1974) 'Bidding games for the valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1, 132-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ridker, R.G. and J.A. Henning (1967) 'The determinants of residential property values with special reference to air pollution', Review of Economics and Statistics, 49, 246-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rosen, S. (1974) 'Hedonistic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition', Journal of Political Economy, 82, 34-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rowe, R., R. d'Arge and D. Brookshire (1980) 'An experiment on the economic value of visibility', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 7, 1-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Seip, K. and J. Strand (1990) 'Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment', Memorandum 12, Department of Economics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  95. Sellar, C, J. Stoll and J.P. Chevas (1985) 'Validation of empirical measures of welfare change', Land Economics, 61(2), 156-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shogren, J. (1993) 'Experimental markets and environmental policy', Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 22, 117-29.Google Scholar
  97. Smith, V.K. (1993) 'Non-market valuation of environmental resources' Land Economics, 69, 1-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Smith, V.K. and W. Desvouges (1986) Measuring Water Quality Benefits, Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Smith, V.K. and JiChin Huang (1993) 'Hedonic models and air quality; 25 years and counting', Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 3(4), 381-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Smith, V.K. and Y. Kaoru (1987) The hedonic travel cost model: A view from the trenches', Land Economics, 63(2), 179-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Smith, V.K. and Y. Kaoru (1990) 'Signals or noise? Explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May, 419-33.Google Scholar
  102. Smith, V.K., W. Desvouges and M. McGivney (1983) 'Estimating water quality benefits: an econometric analysis', Southern Economic Journal, 50, 422-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Svento, R. (1993) 'Some notes on trichotomous choice valuation', Environmental and Resource Economics, 3(6), 533-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thayer, M. (1981) 'Contingent valuation techniques for assessing environmental impacts: further evidence', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 8, 27-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. US Environmental Protection Agency (1990) Progress in Groundwater Protection and Restoration, EPA 440/6-90-001, Washington, D.C.: Office of Water.Google Scholar
  106. Vaughn, W. and C. Russell (1982) 'The value of a fishing day: an application of the varying parameter model', Land Economics, 58(4), 450-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Viscusi, W. and W. Magat (1987) Learning about Risk: consumer and worker responses to hazard information, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson and J.R. McKean (1989) 'Issues in non-market valuation: a retrospective glance', Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 14, 178-88.Google Scholar
  109. Willis, K. (1995) 'Benefits transfer', in K. Willis and J. Corkindale (eds), Environmental Valuation: New Directions, Oxford: CAB International.Google Scholar
  110. Willis, K. and G. Garrod (1991) 'An individual travel cost method for evaluating forest recreation', Journal of Agricultural Economics, 42, 33-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wilman, E. (1980) 'The value of time in recreation benefit studies', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1, 272-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wood, S. and A. Trice (1958) 'Measurement of recreation benefits', Land Economics, 34, 195-207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Nick Hanley, Jason F. Shogren and Ben White 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Hanley
    • 1
  • Jason F. Shogren
    • 2
  • Ben White
    • 3
  1. 1.University of StirlingUK
  2. 2.University of WyomingUSA
  3. 3.University of Newcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations