Advertisement

Methods of Environmental Valuation

  • John LoomisEmail author
  • Christopher Huber
  • Leslie Richardson
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Commensurate valuation of market and nonmarket public goods allows for a more valid benefit-cost analysis. Economic methods for valuing nonmarket public goods include actual behavior-based revealed preference methods, such as the hedonic property method for urban-suburban public goods and travel cost models for outdoor recreation. For valuing proposed public goods for which there is no current behavior, or valuing the existence or passive use values of public goods, economists can rely on stated preference methods. While there is skepticism among some economists for relying on what people say they will pay rather than what their actual behavior suggests they will pay, there is general acceptance of stated preference methods. These stated preference methods include the well-known contingent valuation method and choice experiments (sometimes called conjoint analysis). Lastly, in situations where there is neither time nor money to conduct an original revealed or stated preference study, economists can rely on benefit transfers from existing revealed preference and stated preference studies to provide rough estimates of the values of public goods such as water quality, air quality, wetlands, recreation, and endangered species.

Keywords

Hedonic property Choice experiment Contingent valuation Revealed preference Stated preference Travel cost models 

References

  1. Abdullah S, Markandya A, Nunes P (2011) Introduction to economic valuation methods. In: Batabyal A, Nijkamp P (eds) Research tools in natural resource and environmental economics. World Scientific, Hackensack, pp 143–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberini A, Kahn J (2006) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg 58(10):4602–4614Google Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Liekens I, Navrud S, De Nocker L, Ščeponavičiūtė R, Semėnienė D (2011) Making benefit transfers work—deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ Res Econ 50(3):365–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergstrom JC, Loomis JB (2017) Economic valuation of river restoration: An analysis of the valuation literature and its uses in decision-making. Water Resour Econ 17:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergstrom J, Taylor L (2006) Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: theory and practice. Ecol Econ 60(2):351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishop RC, Boyle KJ (2017) Reliability and validity in nonmarket valuation. In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 463–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bishop RC, Boyle KJ, Carson RT, Chapman D et al (2017) Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: the BP oil spill. Science 356(6335):253–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyle K (2017) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 83–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brookshire D, d’Arge R, Schulze W, Thayer M (1982) Valuing public goods: a comparison of the survey and hedonic approaches. Am Econ Rev 72(1):165–177Google Scholar
  11. Carson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environ Res Econ 37:181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson R, Flores N, Martin K, Wright J (1996) Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ 72(1):113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carson R, Mitchell R, Hanemann M, Kopp R, Presser S, Ruud P (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive value: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Res Econ 25(2):257–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Champ P, Brown T, McCollum D (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits 735 from public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 33(1):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cummings R, Taylor L (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89:649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman M (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods, 2nd edn. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Haab T, McConnell K (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of 743 non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herriges J, Kling C (eds) (1999) Valuing recreation and the environment: revealed preference methods in theory and practice. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmes TP, Adamowicz WL, Carlsson F (2017) Choice experiments. In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 133–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huber C, Meldrum J, Richardson L (2018) Improving confidence by embracing uncertainty: a meta-analysis of US hunting values for benefit transfer. Ecosyst Serv 33:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2001) The problem of identifying land use spillovers: measuring the effects of open space on residential property values. Am Agric Econ 83:698–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnston RJ, Thomassin PJ (2010) Willingness to pay for water quality improvements in the United States and Canada: considering possibilities for international meta-analysis and benefit transfer. Agric Res Econ Rev 39(1):114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnston RJ, Ranson MH, Besedin EY, Helm EC (2006) What determines willingness to pay per fish? A meta-analysis of recreational fishing values. Marine Res Econ 21(1):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (eds) (2015) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values, vol 14. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Stapler R (2016) Enhanced geospatial validity for meta-analysis and environmental benefit transfer: an application to water quality improvements. Environ Res Econ:1–33Google Scholar
  26. Kling C, Phaneuf D, Zhao J (2012) From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number. J Econ Perspect 26(4):3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loomis J (1996) Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha river: results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resour Res 32(2):441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loomis J (2011) What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies. J Econ Survey 25(2):363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loomis JB (2014) 2013 WAEA keynote address: strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. J Agric Resour Econ 39:34–46Google Scholar
  30. Loomis J, Yorizane S, Larson D (2000) Testing significance of multi-destination and multi-purpose trip effects in a travel cost method demand model for whale watching trips. Agric Resource Econ Rev 29(2):183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2001) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications in marketing, transportation and environmental valuation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Mueller J, Loomis J (2008) Spatial dependence in Hedonic property models: do different corrections result in economically significant differences in estimated implicit prices. J Agric Res Econ 33(2):212–231Google Scholar
  33. Nelson J, Kennedy P (2009) The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: an assessment. Environ Res Econ 42(3):345–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parsons GR (2013) Travel cost methods. In: Shogren JF (ed) Encyclopedia of energy, natural resource, and environmental economics, vol 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parsons G (2017) Travel cost models. In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 187–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Recreation use values database (2016) Oregon State University, College of Forestry, Corvallis. Available at: http://recvaluation.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
  37. Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68:1535–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rolfe J, Windle J, Bennett J (2015) Benefit transfer: insights from choice experiments. In: Johnston R, Rolfe J, Rosenberger R, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 191–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenberger R (2015) Benefit transfer validity, reliability and error. In: Johnston R, Rolfe J, Rosenberger R, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenberger RS, Loomis JB (2017) Benefit transfer. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 431–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenberger RS, White EM, Kline JD, Cvitanovich C (2017) Recreation economic values for estimating outdoor recreation economic benefits from the National Forest System. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-957. Portland, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 33 pGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor L (2017) Hedonics. In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 235–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. District Court of Appeals (for the District of Columbia). State of Ohio vs. U.S. Department of Interior (1989) Case number 86-15755. July 14, 1989Google Scholar
  44. Vossler C, Evans M (2009) Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: environmental goods, policy maker input and consequentiality. J Environ Econ Manage 58:338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walsh R, Loomis J, Gillman R (1984) Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Econ 60(1):14–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weber MA (2015) Navigating benefit transfer for salmon improvements in the Western US. Front Mar Sci 2(74):1–17Google Scholar
  47. Whitehead J, Haab T, Huang JC (2011) Preference data for environmental valuation: combining revealed and stated approaches. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Loomis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher Huber
    • 2
  • Leslie Richardson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science CenterFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.National Park Service, Social Science ProgramFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations