Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T11:26:37.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validating Contingent Valuation with Surveys of Experts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Kevin J. Boyle ,
Michael P. Welsh ,
Richard C. Bishop  and
Robert M. Baumgartner
Kevin J. Boyle
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics and Policy, University of Maine
Michael P. Welsh
Affiliation:
Hagler Bailly Consulting Inc., Madison, WI
Richard C. Bishop
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert M. Baumgartner
Affiliation:
Hagler Bailly Consulting Inc
Get access

Abstract

Contingent-valuation estimates for white-water boating passengers are compared with Likert ratings by river guides. The approach involves asking whether passengers and their guides ordinally rank alternative flows the same. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Contingent Valuation Panel (1993) suggested “one might want to compare its (contingent-valuation's) outcome with that provided by a panel of experts.” River guides constitute a counterfactual panel of “experts.” For commercial trips, optimum flows are 34,000 cfs and 31,000 cfs for passengers and guides, and the comparable figures for private trips are 28,000 cfs and 29,000 cfs. In the NOAA Panel framework, passengers can evaluate the consequences of various river flows and translate this into contingent-valuation responses.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 247 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bishop, R.C., Boyle, K.J., Baumgartner, R.B., Welsh, M.P., and Rathbun, P. “Glen Canyon Dam Releases and Downstream Recreation: An Analysis of User Preferences and Economic Values.” Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Madison, WI: HBRS, 1987.Google Scholar
Bishop, R.C., and Heberlein, T.A. “The CV Method.” In Johnson, R.L. and Johnson, G.V., eds., Economic Valuation of Natural Resources. Boulder: Westview Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J., and Bishop, R.C. “Welfare Measurements Using CV: A Comparison of Techniques.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88, Mo. 1 (1988): 20–28.Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J., Welsh, M.P., and Bishop, R.C. “Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: Comment and Extension.” Land Economics 64, Mo. 1 (1988): 94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, K.J., Welsh, M.P., and Bishop, R.C. “The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in CV Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25, Mo. 1 (1993): 580–599.Google Scholar
Brookshire, D.S., Thayer, M.A., Schulze, W.D., and d'Arge, R.C. “Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and hedonic Approaches.” American Economics Review 72, Mo. 1 (1982): 165–77.Google Scholar
Carmines, E.G., and Zeller, R.H. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coursey, D.L., Hovis, J. and Schulze, W.D. 1987. “The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to pay Measures of Value.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 102, Mo. 2 (1987): 679–690.Google Scholar
Cropper, M.L., and Oates, W.E. 1992. “Environmental Economics: A Survey.” Journal of Economics Literature 30 (1992): 675–740.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., and Schulze, W.D. Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the CV Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
Davis, R.K. “The Value of Big Game Hunting in a Private Forest.” Transactions of the Twenty-Ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 1964.Google Scholar
Diamond, P.A., and Hausman, J.A. “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number.” Economic Perspective 8 (1994): 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P.H., Hausman, J.A., Leonard, G.K., and Denning, M.A. “Does CV Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence.” In CV: A Critical Assessment, Hausman, J.A. (ed). North Holland Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Dickie, M., Fisher, A., and Gerking, S. “Market Transactions and Hypothetical Demand Data: A Comparative Study.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 82 (1987): 69–75.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. “Welfare Evaluations in CV Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984): 332–341.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Knetsch, J. 1992. “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, Mo. 1 (1992): 57–70.Google Scholar
Kealy, M.J., Dovidio, J.F., and Rockel, M.L. 1988. “Accuracy in Valuation is a Matter of Degree.” Land Economics 64, Mo. 2 (1988): 158–71.Google Scholar
McClelland, G.H., et al. “Methods for Measuring Nonuse Values: A CV Study of Groundwater Cleanup.” Final report, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cooperative Agreement #CR-815183, 1992.Google Scholar
NOAA CV Panel. “Natural Resource Damage Assessments Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 .” Federal Register 58, Mo. 10 (1993): 4601–14.Google Scholar
Phillips, C.V., and Zeckhauser, R.J. “Contingent Valuation of Damage to Natural Resources: How Accurate? How Appropriate?” Toxics Law Reporter 9 (1989): 520–29.Google Scholar
Scott, A. “The Valuation of Game Resources: Some Theoretical Aspects.” Canadian Fisheries Reporter 4 (1965): 27–47.Google Scholar
Sellar, C., Stoll, J.P. and Chavas, J.P. “Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques.” Land Economics 61, Mo. 12 (1985): 156–75.Google Scholar
Shelby, B., Brown, T.C., and Baumgartner, R. “Effects of Streamflows on River Trips on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona.” Rivers 3, Mo. 13 (1992): 191–201.Google Scholar
Smith, V.K., Desvousges, W.H., and Fisher, A. 1986. “A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods for Estimating Environmental Benefits.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68, Mo. 2 (1986): 280–90.Google Scholar
Whittington, D., et al. “Giving Respondents Time to Think in CV Studies: A Developing Country Application.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, Mo. 3 (1992): 205–25.Google Scholar