Abstract
Directly asking people their willingness to pay or accept compensation for aesthetic changes is a popular approach to their valuation. A format is often favoured in which respondents are invited to say whether they would or would not pay or accept a stipulated sum. Numerous difficulties arise, through the hypothetical nature of the question, through possible bias in posing it, and through self-interested strategic response. Interviewees may be unprepared to give an answer. Respondents may misunderstand the scope of what is being considered, and giving more information may lead to unwanted valuations’ being included. Putting the question in a voting context may avoid some problems, as may offering choice between mixed environmental/monetary packages. People attempting to act as “good citizens” clouds the meaning of their responses. There remain opposed views on the efficacy of this approach.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adamowicz, V. (1995). Alternative valuation techniques: A comparison and movement to a synthesis. In K. G. Willis & J. T. Corkindale (Eds.), Environmental valuation: New perspectives (pp. 144–159). Wallingford: CAB International.
Areal, F. J., & Macleod, A. (2006). Estimating the economic value of trees at risk from a quarantine disease. In A. G. J. M. Oude Lansink (Ed.), New approaches to the economics of plant health (pp. 119–130). New York: Springer.
Armatas, C. A., Venn, T. J., & Watson, A. E. (2014). Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States. Ecological Economics, 107, 447–456.
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Learner, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601–4614.
Atkinson, G., Morse-Jones, S., Mourato, S., & Provins, A. (2012). When to take “no” for an answer? Using entreaties to reduce protests in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51, 497–523.
Balistreri, E., Mcclelland, G., Poe, G., & Schulze, W. (2001). Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environmental and Resource Economics, 18, 275–292.
Bishop, R. C., & Heberlein, T. (1979). Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 926–930.
Bishop, R. C., & Welsh, M. P. (1993). Existence values in benefit–cost analysis and damage assessment. In W. L. Adamowicz, W. White, & W. E. Phillips (Eds.), Forestry and the environment: Economic perspectives (pp. 135–154). Wallingford: CAB International.
Blamey, R. K. (1996). Citizens, consumers and contingent valuation: Clarification and the expression of citizen values and issue-opinions. In W. L. Adamowicz, P. C. Boxall, M. K. Luckert, W. E. Phillips, & W. A. White (Eds.), Forestry, Economics and the Environment (pp. 103–133). Wallingford: CAB International.
Bohara, A. K., Kerkvliet, J., & Berrens, R. P. (2001). Addressing negative willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation: A Monte Carlo simulation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 173–195.
Bohm, P. (1972). Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Review, 3, 111–130.
Bonnieux, F., & Le Goffe, P. (1998). Cost–benefit analysis of landscape restoration: A case study in western France. In S. Dabbert, A. Dubgaard, L. Slangen & M. Whitby (Eds.), The economics of landscape and wildlife conservation (pp. 85–96). Wallingford: CAB International.
Börger, T. (2013). Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews. Ecological Economics, 87, 155–165.
Boyle, K. J., Bishop, R. C., & Welsh, M. P. (1985). Starting point bias in contingent bidding games. Land Economics, 61, 188–194.
Brookshire, D. S., & Coursey, D. L. (1987). Measuring the value of a public good: an empirical comparison of elicitation procedures. American Economic Review, 77, 554–566.
Brookshire, D. S., Ives, B. C., & Schulze, W. D. (1976). The valuation of aesthetic preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 3, 325–346.
Broome, J. (1995). Weighing goods: Equality, uncertainty and time. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cameron, T. A., & James, M. D. (1987). Efficient estimation methods for “closed-ended” contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 269–276.
Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27–42.
Carson, R. T., & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 181–210.
Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Martin, K. M., & Wright, J. L. (1996). Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics, 72, 80–99.
Chaudhry, P., Singh, B., & Tewari, V. P. (2007). Non-market economic valuation in developing countries: Role of participant observation method in CVM analysis. Journal of Forest Economics, 13, 259–275.
Christensen, J. B. (1989). An economic approach to assessing the value of recreation with special reference to forest areas. Copenhagen: Skovbrugsinstituttet.
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. von (1947). Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29, 1181–1196.
Clark, J., Burgess, J., & Harrison, C. M. (2000). ‘I struggled with this money business’: Respondents’ perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 33, 45–62.
Colombo, S., & Hanley, N. (2008). How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Economics, 84, 128–147.
Curtis, J. A., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 46, 69–83.
Davis, R. K. (1963). Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal, 3, 239–249.
Day, B., & Prades, J.-L. P. (2010). Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 271–285.
de Ayala, A., Hoyos, D., & Mariel, P. (2015). Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention. Journal of Forest Economics, 21, 79–96.
de Bruin, A., Pateman, R., Dyke, A., Cinderby, S., & Jones, G. (2014). Social and cultural values of trees in the context of the threat and management of tree disease. York: Stockholm Environment Institute.
Edwards, S. F., & Anderson, G. D. (1987). Overlooked biases in contingent valuation surveys: Some considerations. Land Economics, 63, 168–178.
Foster, C. (1992). Aesthetic disillusionment: Environment, ethics, art. Environmental Values, 1, 205–215.
Garcia, D., & Riera, P. (2003). Expansion versus density in Barcelona: A valuation exercise. Urban Studies, 40, 1925–1936.
Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., & Angelstam, P. (2015). Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecological Economics, 119, 8–23.
Gong, M., & Adland, D. (2011). Interview effects in an environmental valuation telephone survey. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49, 47–64.
Grammatikopoulou, I., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M., & Soini, K. (2012). Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 181–191.
Gregory, R. (1986). Interpreting measures of economic loss: Evidence from contingent valuation and experimental studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 13, 325–337.
Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 1255–1263.
Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R. E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D., & Crabtree, B. (1998). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49, 1–15.
Harrison, G. W. (2006). Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 125–162.
Hasund, K. P., Kataria, M., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2011). Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: A choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54, 31–53.
Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation: From dubious to hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 43–56.
Helson, H. (1948). Adaptation level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychological Review, 55, 297–313.
Herriges, J. A., & Shogren, J. F. (1996). Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 112–131.
Hoinville, G. (1971). Evaluating community preferences. Environment and Planning A, 3, 33–50.
Howley, P. (2011). Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72, 161–169.
Jacobsen, J. B., Lundhede, T. H., Martinsen, L., Hasler, B., & Thorsen, B. J. (2011). Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects. Ecological Economics, 70, 1170–1177.
Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Recreation–amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, 81–96.
Jin, J., Jiang, C., & Li, L. (2006). The economic valuation of cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation study in Wenling City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, 81–96.
Johnston, R. J. (2007). Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer. Environmental and Resource Economics, 38, 331–351.
Jude, S., Jones, A. P., Andrews, J. E., & Bateman, I. J. (2006). Visualisation for participatory coastal zone management: A case study of the Norfolk coast, England. Journal of Coastal Research, 22, 1527–1538.
Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57–70.
Kling, C. L., Phaneuf, D. J., & Zhao, J. (2012). From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 3–26.
Kneese, A. V. (1984). Measuring the benefits of clean air and water. Washington: Resources for the Future.
Larcom, L. (1931). I learned it in the meadow path. In Anon (Ed.), Songs of Praise (p. 199). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lazo, J. K., McClelland, G. H., & Schulze, W. D. (1997). Economic theory and psychology of non-use values. Land Economics, 73, 358–371.
Lienhoop, N., & MacMillan, D. C. (2007). Contingent valuation: Comparing participant performance in group-based approaches and personal interviews. Environmental Values, 16, 209–232.
Lindhjem, H. (2007). 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics, 12, 251–277.
Lindhjem, H., & Navrud, S. (2011). Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecological Economics, 70, 1628–1637.
List, J. A., & Gallet, C. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241–254.
Loomis, J. B. (1988). Contingent valuation using dichotomous choice models. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 46–56.
MacMillan, D. (1999). Non-market benefits of restoring native woodlands. In C. S. Roper & A. Park (Eds.), The living forest: Non-market benefits of forestry (pp. 189–195). London: HMSO.
MacMillan, D., Hanley, N., & Lienhoop, N. (2006). Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine? Ecological Economics, 60, 299–307.
Madureira, L., Nunes, L. C., Borges, J. G., & Falcão, A. O. (2011). Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: A Portuguese case study. Journal of Forest Economics, 17, 399–414.
Maguire, K. (2009). Does mode matter? A comparison of telephone, mail, and in-person treatments in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 3528–3533.
McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R., Arvai, J., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2003). Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 46, 33–46.
Meldrum, J. R., Champ, P. A., & Bond, C. A. (2013). Heterogeneous nonmarket benefits of managing white pine blister rust in high-elevation pine forests. Journal of Forest Economics, 19, 61–77.
Meyerhoff, J., Mørkbak, M. R., & Olsen, S. B. (2014). A meta-study investigating the sources of protest behaviour in stated preference surveys. Environmntal and Resource Economics, 58, 35–57.
Mirasgedis, S., Tourkolias, C., Tzovla, E., & Diakoulaki, D. (2014). Valuing the visual impact of windfarms: an application in South Evia, Greece. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 296–311.
Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future.
Morrison, M., & Bergland, O. (2006). Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer. Ecological Economics, 60, 420–428.
Murphy, J. J., Stevens, T. H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 327–343.
Nam, S., Park, S., & Shin, H.-C. (2015). Accessing the economic value of night view of bridge using contingent valuation method: The case of South Korea’s Han-River bridge. Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9, 360–370.
Navrud, S., Ready, R. C., Magnussen, K., & Bergland, O. (2008). Valuing the social benefits of avoiding landscape degradation from overhead power transmission lines: Do underground cables pass the benefit–cost test? Landscape Research, 33, 281–296.
Nielsen, A. B., Olsen, S. B., & Lundhede, T. (2007). An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80, 63–71.
Olsen, S. B., Lundhede, T. H., Jacobsen, J. B., & Thorsen, B. J. (2011). Tough and easy choices: Testing the influence of utility difference on stated certainty-in-choice in choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49, 491–510.
Ovaskainen, V., & Kniivilä, M. (2005). Consumer versus citizen preferences: Evidence on the role of question framing. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 49, 379–394.
Paul, M. (1971). Can aircraft noise nuisance be measured in money? Oxford Economic Papers, 23, 297–322.
Pinchot, G. (1910). The fight for conservation. New York: Doubleday.
Ponce, R. D., Vásquez, F., Stehr, A., Debels, R., & Orihuela, C. (2011). Estimating the economic value of landscape losses due to flooding by hydropower plants in the Chilean Patagonia. Water Resources Management, 25, 2449–2466.
Pope, A. (1711). An essay on criticism. London: W. Lewis.
Price, C. (1970). Social benefit from forestry in the UK. Oxford University, Department of Forestry.
Price, C. (1979). Public preference and the management of recreational congestion. Regional Studies, 13, 125–139.
Price, C. (1999). Contingent valuation and retrograde information bias. In A. Park & C. Stewart Roper (Eds.), The living forest (pp. 37–44). London: The Stationery Office.
Price, C. (2000). Valuation of unpriced products: Contingent valuation, cost–benefit analysis and participatory democracy. Land Use Policy, 17, 187–196.
Price, C. (2001). Exact values and vague products? Contingent valuation and passive use value. In T. Sievänen, C. C. Konijnendijk, L. Langner, & K. Nilsson (Eds.), Forest and social services—The role of research (pp. 205–217). Vantaa: Finnish Forest Research Institute Research Paper 815.
Price, C. (2006a). Superficial citizens and sophisticated consumers: What questions do respondents to stated preference surveys really answer? Scandinavian Forest Economics, 41, 285–296.
Price, C. (2006b). Buying certification: Pigs in pokes, warm glows, and unexploded bombs. Scandinavian Forest Economics, 41, 265–272.
Price, C. (2013). Subjectivity and objectivity in landscape evaluation: An old topic revisited. In C. M. van der Heide & W. J. M. Heijman (Eds.), The Economic Value of Landscapes (pp. 53–76). Abingdon: Routledge.
Price, C. (2015). Perception of tree disease mitigation: What are people willing to pay for, and what do they actually get? Scandinavian Forest Economics, 45, 32–39.
Rakotonarivo, O. S., Schaafsma, M., & Hockley, N. (2016). A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods. Journal of Environmental Management, 183, 98–109.
Randall, A. (1994). Contingent valuation: An introduction. Landscape Research, 19(1), 12–14.
Randall, A., Grunewald, O., Johnson, S., Ausness, R., & Pagoulatos, A. (1978). Reclaiming coal surface mines in central Appalachia: A case study of the benefits and costs. Land Economics, 54, 472–489.
Roth, M. (2006). Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—An empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 179–192.
Rowe, R. D., & Chestnut, L. G. (1983). Valuing environmental commodities: Revisited. Land Economics, 59, 404–410.
Sagoff, M. (1988). The economy of the earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88–109.
Schläpfer, F., & Hanley, N. (2006). Contingent valuation and collective choice. Kyklos, 59(1), 115–135.
Seip, K., & Strand, J. (1992). Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2, 91–106.
Shogren, J. F. (2006). Valuation in the lab. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 163–172.
Sievänen, T., Pouta, E., & Ovaskainen, V. (1992). Problems of measuring recreational value. Scandinavian Forest Economics, 33, 231–243.
Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics, 63, 690–699.
Sutherland, R. J., & Walsh, R. G. (1985). Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Economics, 61, 281–291.
Szabó, Z. (2011). Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecological Economics, 72, 37–44.
Tagliafierro, C., Longo, A., Van Eetvelde, V., Antrop, M., & Hutchinson, W. G. (2013). Landscape economic valuation by integrating landscape ecology into landscape economics. Environmental Science and Policy, 32, 26–36.
Tempesta, T., Vecchiato, D., & Girardi, P. (2014). The landscape benefits of the burial of high voltage power lines: A study in rural areas of Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 126, 53–64.
Tyrväinen, L. (2001). Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 75–92.
Tyrväinen, L., & Väänänen, H. (1998). The economic value of urban forest amenities: An application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 105–118.
Veisten, K., & Navrud, S. (2006). Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats. Applied Economics, 38, 735–756.
Verbič, M., Slabe-Erker, R., & Klun, M. (2016). Contingent valuation of urban public space: A case study of Ljubljanica riverbanks. Land Use Policy, 56, 58–67.
Vossler, C. A., Doyon, M., & Rondeau, D. (2012). Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(4), 145–171.
Wang, H. (1997). Treatment of “Don’t-Know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 219–232.
Willis, K. G., & Garrod, G. D. (1993). Valuing landscape: A contingent value approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 37, 1–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Price, C. (2017). Stated Preference Questionnaires. In: Landscape Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54873-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54873-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54872-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54873-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)