Abstract
CV studies rarely ask willingness to accept (WTA)questions, yet there are a range of environmentalprojects where there are likely to be potential losersas well as gainers. This paper presents evidence fromsix biodiversity projects that the inclusion ofcontingent compensation payments from thoserespondents who preferred the status quo cansubstantially reduce net project benefits, even whenthe proportion of losers is relatively small. Astatistical model for estimating the mean welfaremeasure from dichotomous choice data which allows forboth positive WTP, zero WTP, and WTA is described. Asmany environmental projects are likely to create bothgainers and losers, we recommend that CV analysts giveserious consideration to the collection and analysisof WTA data otherwise they risk generating biasedestimates of project benefits.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Boman, M. and G. Bostedt (1994), Wildlife Valuation: Estimating the Benefits of the Wolf in Sweden.Working Paper No. 198. Umea: Dept. of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Bostedt, G. and M. Boman (1996), ‘Nonresponse in Contingent Valuation-reducing Uncertainty in Value Inference’, Environmental and Resource Economics 8, 119–124.
Buckland, S. T., D. C. Macmillan, E. I. Duff and N. Hanley (1999), ‘Estimating Mean Willingness to Pay from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies’, The Statistician 48(1), 109–124.
Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, S. Presser and P. Ruud (1992), A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Anchorage: Attorney General of the State of Alaska.
Cooper, J. C. (1994), ‘Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24, 25–37.
Dahle L., D. P. Sodal and B. Solberg (1987), Haldninger til og betalingsvillighet for bjorn, jerv og ulv i Noreg. (Attitudes Towards and Willingness to Pay for Preservation of Brown Bear, Wolverine, and Wolf in Norway.) Report 5/1987, Department of Forest Economics, Agricultural University of Norway, 114 pp.
Dillman, D. A. (1979), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Duffield, J. W. (1992), ‘An Economic Analysis of Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone: Park Visitor Attitudes and Values’, in J. D. Varley and W. G. Brewsters, eds., Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the US Congress Vol IV Research and Analysis. Yellowstone NP: National Park Service.
Fredman, P. (1994), A Test of Non-response Bias in a Mail Contingent Valuation Survey. Arbetsrapport 201. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet: Institutionen for Skogsekonomi.
Hanemann, W. M. (1991), ‘Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?’, The American Economic Review 81(3), 635–647.
Hanley, N., D. C. Macmillan, R. E. Wright, C. Bullock, I. Simpson, D. Parsisson and J.R. Crabtree (1998), 'Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland], Journal of Agricultural Economics 49(1), 1–15.
Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch and R. H. Thaler (1990), ‘Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem’, Journal of Political Economy 90(6), 1325–1348.
Knetsch, J. L. (1992), ‘Preferences and Nonreversibility of Indifference Curves’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation 17, 131–139.
Kristrom, B (1995), Spike Models in Contingent Valuation: Theory and Illustrations. Arbetsrapport 210. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet: Institutionen for Skogsekonomi, Umea, Sweden.
Mackay, J. W. (1995), ‘People, Perceptions and Moorland’, in D. B. A. Thompson, A. J. Hester and M. B. Usher, eds., Heaths and Moorlands: Cultural Landscapes. Edinburgh: HMSO, 102–114.
Macmillan, D. C., N. Hanley and S. T. Buckland (1996), ‘A Contingent Valuation Study of Uncertain Environmental Gains’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy 43(5), 519–533.
Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
NOAA (1993), ‘Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Proposed Rules’, Federal Register 59(5), 1062–1191.
RSPB (1993), Time for Pine: A Future for Caledonian Pinewoods. Edinburgh: R.S.P.B.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Macmillan, D.C., Duff, E.I. & Elston, D.A. Modelling the Non-market Environmental Costs and Benefits of Biodiversity Projects Using Contingent Valuation Data. Environmental and Resource Economics 18, 391–410 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011169413639
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011169413639