IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/jbcacn/v3y2012i4p1-10n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implications of a Weaker Form of Complementarity

Author

Listed:
  • Neill Jon R.

    (Western Michigan University)

Abstract

When a non-market good has existence value, the assumption of weak complementarity cannot be used to determine willingness to pay for that good. However, when this assumption is weakened, it is possible to place an upper bound on marginal willingness to pay even when the non-market good has existence value, and thereby, an upper bound on willingness to pay for changes in consumption of non-market goods can be established. Moreover, this upper bound may be relatively easy to compute.

Suggested Citation

  • Neill Jon R., 2012. "Implications of a Weaker Form of Complementarity," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:jbcacn:v:3:y:2012:i:4:p:1-10:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/2152-2812.1034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/2152-2812.1034
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/2152-2812.1034?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David S. Bullock & Nicholas Minot, 2006. "On Measuring the Value of a Nonmarket Good Using Market Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 961-973.
    2. Christopher D. Azevedo & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2003. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences: Consistency Tests and Their Interpretations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(3), pages 525-537.
    3. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    4. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    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. Neill, Jon R., 2022. "Using consumer’s surplus to bound willingness to pay for non-market goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    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. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    2. Lienhoop, Nele & Ansmann, Till, 2011. "Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1250-1258, May.
    3. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    5. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    6. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    7. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    8. repec:ken:wpaper:0805 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Hocheol Jeon & Joseph A. Herriges, 2017. "Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1053-1086, December.
    10. Yongsik Jeon & Joseph Herriges, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Contingent Behavior Responses in Models of Recreation Demand," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 223-250, February.
    11. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    12. Luís Cruz & Paula Simões & Eduardo Barata, 2014. "Combining Observed and Contingent Travel Behaviour: The Best of Both Worlds?," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 7-25, December.
    13. Cheng, Li & Lupi, Frank, 2016. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Water Quality Changes to Great Lakes Beaches," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235746, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Kovacs, Kent F. & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Recreation at open space and residential development patterns," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 271502, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Adelina Gschwandtner, 2014. "The Organic Food Premium: A Canterbury Tale," Studies in Economics 1411, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    16. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
    17. Christopher Azevedo & John R. Crooker, 2008. "Alternative Approaches to Incorporating the Opportunity Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Models," Working Papers 0803, University of Central Missouri, Department of Economics & Finance, revised May 2008.
    18. Hoyos, David & Riera, Pere, 2013. "Convergent validity between revealed and stated recreation demand data: Some empirical evidence from the Basque Country, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 234-248.
    19. Edoh Y. Amiran & Joni S. James Charles, 2021. "Reconciling revealed and stated measures for willingness to pay in recreation by building a probability model," Papers 2107.14343, arXiv.org.
    20. Aadland, David & Caplan, Arthur J., 2005. "A Bayesian Examination of Anchoring Bias and Cheap Talks in Constructed Markets," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19568, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    21. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.

    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:bpj:jbcacn:v:3:y:2012:i:4:p:1-10:n:1. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.