The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Contingent Valuation

  • Trudy Ann Cameron
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2391

Abstract

‘Contingent valuation’ methods are used to generate demand data, usually from household surveys, when real markets do not supply reliable revealed preference data about demands for certain types of goods. A number of significant lawsuits have promoted their use in estimating demand for environmental goods. They are also used by transportation economists, health economists and market researchers. Although the degree of acceptance of these methods varies, many economists agree that a value based on stated preferences derived from carefully conceived and executed research is almost certainly preferable to no number at all.

Keywords

Conjoint analysis Construct validity assessments Contingent valuation Discrete- choice models Dummy variables Environmental economics Expectations Health economics Household surveys Indirect utility functions Logit models Marginal utility of income Maximum likelihood Neuroeconomics Probit models Random utility models Revealed preference Scope tests Stated preference Willingness to pay 

JEL Classifications

Q51 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601–4614.Google Scholar
  2. Boyle, K.J. 2003. Contingent valuation in practice. In A primer on nonmarket valuation, ed. P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, and T.C. Brown. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Carson, R.T. 2000. Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science & Technology 34: 1413–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin, and J.L. Wright. 1996. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72: 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cummings, R.G., D.S. Brookshire, and W.D. Schulze, eds. 1986. Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
  6. Diamond, P.A., and J.A. Hausman. 1994. Contingent valuation – Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freeman, A.M.I. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  8. Hanemann, W.M. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes, T.P., and W.L. Adamowicz. 2003. Attribute-based methods. In A primer on nonmarket valuation, ed. P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, and T.C. Brown. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. Swait. 2000. Stated choice methods. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Manski, C.F. 2004. Measuring expectations. Econometrica 72: 1329–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McFadden, D. 1994. Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mitchell, R.C., and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  14. Portney, P.R. 1994. The contingent valuation debate – Why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith, R.D. 2003. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: A critical assessment. Health Economics 12: 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trudy Ann Cameron
    • 1
  1. 1.