Estimation of Welfare Changes

  • Jean-Michel Josselin
  • Benoît Le Maux


Since public projects have consequences on individual lives, the estimation of welfare changes is an essential step in the evaluation process (Sect. 6.1). To this end, this chapter gives several tools for eliciting individual preferences. The first set of methods consists of stated preferences techniques whereby individuals declare what their perceptions are of the project and its consequences. Those methods include contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. The former consists in asking directly a sample of individuals their willingness to pay for a program (Sect. 6.2). Discrete choice experiment on the other hand asks the agents to compare a set of public goods or services. It estimates a multi-attribute utility function based on the idea that agents’ preference for goods depend on the characteristics they contain (Sect. 6.3). The second set of methods comprehends revealed preferences techniques, where preferences are inferred from what is observed on existing markets. For instance, the hedonic pricing method values the implicit price of non-market goods, e.g., proximity of a school or air quality, from their impact on real estate market prices (Sect. 6.4). In the same vein, the travel cost method estimates the demand for recreational sites based on the costs incurred by people for visiting the site (Sect. 6.5). Last, the third set of methods is commonly used for the assessment of public health decisions. It aims to estimate directly the utility levels (e.g., QALY) associated with particular health states (Sect. 6.6).


Welfare Contingent evaluation Discrete choice experiment Hedonic pricing Travel cost method 


  1. Al Janabi, H., Flynn, T., & Coast, J. (2012). Development of a self-reported measure of capability well-being for adults: The ICECAP-A. Quality of Life Research, 21, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4602–4614.Google Scholar
  3. Banzhaf, H. S. (2010). Consumer surplus with apology: A historical perspective on nonmarket valuation and recreation demand. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2, 18.1–18.25.Google Scholar
  4. Bowen, H. R. (1943). The interpretation of voting in the allocation of economic resources. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 58, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carson, R. T. (2011). Contingent valuation: A comprehensive bibliography and history. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carson, R. T., & Czajkowski, L. (2014). The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Chau, K. W., Yiu, C. Y., Wong, S. K., & Wai-Chung, L. L. (2004). Hedonic price modelling of environmental attributes: A review of the literature and a Hong Kong case study. In Encyclopaedia of life support systems. Oxford: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  8. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1947). Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29, 1181–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clawson, M. (1959). Method for measuring the demand for, and value of, outdoor recreation. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 10.Google Scholar
  10. Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, A. M. I. I. I. (1971). Air pollution and property values: A methodological comment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 53, 415–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garau, M., Shah, K., Mason, A., Wang, Q., Towse, A., & Drummond, M. (2011). Using QALYs in cancer. Pharmacoeconomics, 29, 673–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hotelling, H. (1947). Letter of June 18, 1947, to Newton B. Drury. Included in the report the economics of public recreation: An economic study of the monetary evaluation of recreation in the National parks, 1949. Mimeographed. Washington, DC: Land and Recreational Planning Division, National Park Service.Google Scholar
  14. Huninck, M., Glasziou, P., Siegel, J., Weeks, J., Pliskin, J., Elstein, A., et al. (2007). Decision making in health and medicine: Integrating evidence and values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–135). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Oppe, M., Devlin, N., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17, 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ridker, R. G., & Henning, J. A. (1967). The determinants of residential property values with special reference to air pollution. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 49, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in perfect competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ryan, M., Gerard, K., & Amaya-Amaya, M. (Eds.). (2008). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Trice, A. H., & Wood, S. E. (1958). Measurement of recreation benefits. Land Economics, 34, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ungar, W. (2011). Challenges in health state valuation in pediatric economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics, 29, 641–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Michel Josselin
    • 1
  • Benoît Le Maux
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of Rennes 1RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations