Abstract
We discuss three stated-preference approaches to eliciting willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental goods, namely open-ended contingent valuation (OE-CVM), conjoint analysis (CA) and multi-attribute utility theory applied to decision panels of experts (EDP). We point out that each approach has advantages and disadvantages relative to the others, and that the relation between WTP estimates from the approaches cannot be predicted on prior arguments alone. The three approaches are applied in three different surveys, where we seek valuation of specific damages due to air pollution in Norway. In all cases studied, OE-CVM clearly yields the lowest average WTP estimates, while those from CA and EDP are similar. Possible explanations are offered, based on the principal differences between the approaches and on particular features of the three surveys.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:271–292.
Brookshire, D. S., R.C. Arge, W.D. Schulze, and M.A. Thayer. 1981. Experiments in Valuing Public Goods. Advances in Applied Microeconomics 1:123–172.
Carson, R.T., and R.C. Mitchell. 1995. The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75:1263–1267.
Clench-Aas, J., Larssen S., Bartonova A., and Johnsrud M. 1989. Virkninger av luftforurensninger fra veitrafikk på menneskers helse. Resultater fra en undersøkelse i Vålerenga/Gamlebyen-omrádet i Oslo. Oslo: NILU.
Desvouges, W. et al. 1983. A comparison of alternative approaches for estimating recreation and related benefits of water quality improvements. Washington D.C. USEPA.
Desvouges, W. et al. 1992. Using CV to measure non-use damages: An assessment of validity and reliability. Research Triangle Park.
Diamond, P A, and J A Hausman. 1994. Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8:45–64.
Greene, W H. 1993.Limdep 7, User’;s Manual. Bellprot, New York: Econometric Software Inc.
Gregory, R, S Lichtenstein, and P Slovic. 1993. Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7:177–197.
Halvorsen, B. 1996. Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Surveys. Willingness to Pay for Reduced Health Damage from Air Pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics 8 (4).
Hanemann, W M, and B Kanninen. 1996. The Statistical Analysis of Discrete Response CV Data. Berkeley: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Divison of Agricultural Resources, University of California.
Hausman, J.A., ed. 1993. Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Heiberg, A. B., and K.-G. Hem. 1989. Use of formal methods in evaluating counter-measures to coastal water pollution. A case study of the Kristiansand Fjord, Southern Norway. In Risk Management of Chemicals in the Environment, edited by H. M. Seip and A. B. Heiberg: Plenum Press.
Hensher, D.A. 1994. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation 21 (2).
Hoehn, J. P., and A. Randall. 1989. A satisfactory benefit-cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14:226–247.
Janssen, R. 1992. Multiobjective decision support for environmental managemen. Doordrecht: Kluwer.
Kahneman, D, and J L Knetsch.1992. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22:57–70.
Kanninen, B. 1995. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28:114–125.
Kami, R.P., P. Feigin, and A. Breiner. 1991. Multicriterion issues in energy policy making. European Journal of Operations Research 56:30–40.
Kealy, M. J., and R. W. Turner. 1993. A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75:321–331.
Keeney, R, and H Raiffa. 1976.Decision with Multiple Objectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kristrøm, B. 1993. Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 3:63–71.
Loomis, J. B. 1990. Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open- ended contingent valuation techniques. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18:78–85.
Louviere, J.J., and D.A. Hensher. 1982. On the design and analysis of simulated or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transportation Reseach Record 890:11–17.
Louviere, J.J., and G.G. Woodworth. 1983. Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregated data. Journal of Marketing Reseach 20:350–367.
Mackenzie, J. 1993. A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models. American Journal of Agricultural Economica 75:593–603.
Magat, W. A., W. K. Viscusi, and J. Huber. 1988. Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15:395–411.
McFadden, D., and G.K. Leonard. 1993. Issues in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: Methodologies for Data Collection and Analysis. In Contingent Valuation. A Critical assessment., edited by J. A. Hausman.
Mitchel, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1989.Using surveys to value public goods: The Contingent Valuation method. Washington D. C.: Resources for the Future.
Roe, B, K J Boyle, and M F Teisl. 1996. Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 (2):145–159.
Seller, C., J. P. Chavas, and J. R. Stoll. 1985. Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: a comparison of nonmarket techniques. Land Economics 61:156–175.
Shechter, M. 1991. A comparative Study of Environmental Amenity Valuations. Environmental and Resource Economics 1:129–155.
Stam, A, M Kuula, and H Cesar. 1992. Transboundary Air Pollution in Europe. An Interactive Multicriteria Tradeoff Analysis. European Journal of Operations Research 56:249–262.
Saelensminde, K, and F Hammer. 1993. Samvalgsanalyse som metode for verdsetting av miljø – Pilotundersøkelse (Conjoint Analysis as a Method of Assessing Environmental Benefits – Pilot Study). In Norwegian with English summary. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics.
Saelensminde, K, and F Hammer. 1994. Verdsetting av miljøgoder ved bruk av samvalgsanalyse – Hovedundersøkelse (Assessing Environmental Benefits by Means of Conjoint Analysis – Main Study). In Norwegian with English summary. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics.
Wenstøp, Fred, and Arne J. Carlsen. 1987. Ranking hydroelectric power projects with Multi Criteria Decision Analysis. Interfaces 18:36–48.
Wenstøp, Fred, Arne J. Carlsen, Olvar Bergland, and Per Magnus. 1994. Valuation of Environmental Goods with Expert Panels. Sandvika: Norwegian School of Management.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Halvorsen, B., Strand, J., Sælensminde, K., Wenstøp, F. (1998). Comparing Contingent Valuation, Conjoint Analysis and Decision Panels: An Application to the Valuation of Reduced Damages from Air Pollution in Norway. In: Stewart, T.J., van den Honert, R.C. (eds) Trends in Multicriteria Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 465. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45772-2_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45772-2_24
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64741-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45772-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive