IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v40y1996i2p129-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens (Blamey, Common And Quiggin, Ajae 39:3) — A Comment

Author

Listed:
  • John Rolfe
  • Jeffrey W. Bennett

Abstract

Blarney, Common and Quiggin (1995) (BCQ) suggest that responses to contingent valuation (CV) questionnaires may be framed either according to the extent of individual benefits received, or according to wider views about ethical frameworks, impacts on other people, or desired societal levels. They characterise the individual benefit approach as a consumer model, and responses indicating wider concerns as citizen preferences. Citizen value responses are held to invalidate the economic assumptions underlying the use of CV. Hence, they hypothesize that the incorporation of CV results into benefit-cost analysis is problematic. In this comment we suggest that there are several flaws with the citizen value hypothesis. These can be grouped into arguments about the existence of citizen values based on ethical or altruistic grounds, and arguments about the identification of citizen values.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • John Rolfe & Jeffrey W. Bennett, 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens (Blamey, Common And Quiggin, Ajae 39:3) — A Comment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 129-133, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:40:y:1996:i:2:p:129-133
    DOI: j.1467-8489.1996.tb00559.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8489.1996.tb00559.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/j.1467-8489.1996.tb00559.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blamey, Russell K. & Common, Mick S. & Quiggin, John C., 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 1-26, December.
    2. Broome, John, 1992. "Deontology and Economics," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 269-282, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karine Latouche, 1999. "Farm animal welfare : French perception through contingent valuation method," Post-Print hal-02285598, HAL.
    2. Kaowen Grace Chang & Hungju Chien & Hungyao Cheng & Hsin-i Chen, 2018. "The Impacts of Tourism Development in Rural Indigenous Destinations: An Investigation of the Local Residents’ Perception Using Choice Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Curtis, John A. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(1), pages 1-15.
    4. Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2005. "Australasian environmental economics: contributions, conflicts and ‘cop-outs’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 1-19.
    5. McCartney, Abbie & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups," Research Reports 107575, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    6. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2015. "Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-18.
    8. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 306-318.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. van der Pol, Thomas & Weikard, Hans-Peter & van Ierland, Ekko, 2012. "Can altruism stabilise international climate agreements?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 112-120.
    3. Blamey, Russell K. & Gordon, Jenny & Chapman, Ross, 1999. "Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(3), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
    5. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    6. Blamey, Russell K., 1996. "Contingent Valuation: A Question of Validity," 1996 Conference (40th), February 11-16, 1996, Melbourne, Australia 149802, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    8. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?— Reply," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 135-138, August.
    9. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    10. Karine Latouche, 1999. "Farm animal welfare : French perception through contingent valuation method," Post-Print hal-02285598, HAL.
    11. Gina Waterfield & Scott Kaplan & David Zilberman, 2020. "Willingness to Pay versus Willingness to Vote: Consumer and Voter Avoidance of Genetically Modified Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 505-524, March.
    12. Ek, Kristina, 2005. "Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(13), pages 1677-1689, September.
    13. Ross A. Tippit, 2014. "Modeling exogenous moral norms," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 8(1), November.
    14. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-18.
    15. van Rensburg, Tom M. & Mill, Greig A. & Common, Mick & Lovett, Jon, 2002. "Preferences and multiple use forest management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 231-244, December.
    16. Alphonce, Roselyne & Alfnes, Frode & Sharma, Amit, 2014. "Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 160-166.
    17. Howley, Peter & Hynes, Stephen & O'Donoghue, Cathal, 2010. "The citizen versus consumer distinction: An exploration of individuals' preferences in Contingent Valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1524-1531, May.
    18. Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2005. "Australasian environmental economics: contributions, conflicts and ‘cop-outs’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 1-19.
    19. V. Kerry Smith & Carol Mansfield & H. Allen Klaiber, 2022. "Terrorist threats, information disclosures, and consumer sovereignty," Chapters, in: The Economics of Environmental Risk, chapter 16, pages 231-240, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Stuart Harris, 1996. "Economics of the Environment: A Survey," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 72(217), pages 154-171, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:40:y:1996:i:2:p:129-133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.