IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v9y1997i2p225-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do existence values for cost benefit analysis exist?

Author

Listed:
  • M. Common
  • I. Reid
  • R. Blamey

Abstract

The use of the contingent valuation method to generate estimates of existence value for input to cost benefit analysis requires that individuals have utility functions defined over the relevant arguments. The validity of the assumption that the required utility functions generally exist has been questioned. It has been argued that some individuals will respond on the basis of lexicographic preference orderings. It has also been argued that some individuals do not consider that market, or individual willingness to pay, criteria are appropriate where existence value type issues are at stake. The paper considers survey evidence bearing upon these arguments. It is concluded that the evidence is consistent with the view that it is incorrect to proceed on the assumption that individuals generally satisfy the assumptions required for the existence of existence values for use in cost benefit analysis. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Suggested Citation

  • M. Common & I. Reid & R. Blamey, 1997. "Do existence values for cost benefit analysis exist?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 225-238, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:9:y:1997:i:2:p:225-238
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02441379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02441379
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02441379?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. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    2. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    3. Kirchgassner, Gebhard & Pommerehne, Werner W, 1993. "Low-Cost Decisions as a Challenge to Public Choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 107-115, September.
    4. Jeffrey W. Bennett, 1984. "Using Direct Questioning To Value The Existence Benefits Of Preserved Natural Areas," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 28(2-3), pages 136-152, 08-12.
    5. Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
    6. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Edwards, Steven F., 1986. "Ethical Preferences And The Assessment Of Existence Values: Does The Neoclassical Model Fit?," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-6, 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. Cooper, Philip & Poe, Gregory L. & Bateman, Ian J., 2004. "The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-82, September.
    2. Joan Costa-Font & Joan Rovira, 2005. "Eliciting preferences for collectively financed health programmes: the 'willingness to assign' approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(14), pages 1571-1583.
    3. Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2006. "A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle model of wildlife valuation: The citizen's perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 192-208, June.
    4. Olof Johansson-Stenman, 1998. "The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 429-442, April.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Fernando San Miguel, 2003. "Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 295-307, April.
    6. David Pearce & Giles Atkinson, 1998. "The concept of sustainable development: An evaluation of its usefulness ten years after Brundtland," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 134(III), pages 251-269, September.
    7. Gelso, Brett R. & Peterson, Jeffrey M., 2005. "The influence of ethical attitudes on the demand for environmental recreation: incorporating lexicographic preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 35-45, April.
    8. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, C. & Machleras, A. & Skourtos, M., 2012. "Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: A methodological test," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 97-104.
    9. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field," Monash Economics Working Papers 43-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    10. David Pearce & Giles Atkinson, 1998. "Concept of sustainable development: An evaluation of its usefulness 10 years after Brundtland," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 1(2), pages 95-111, December.
    11. Mika Rekola, 2003. "Lexicographic Preferences in Contingent Valuation: A Theoretical Framework with Illustrations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 277-291.
    12. Soderholm, Patrik & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2003. "Pricing environmental externalities in the power sector: ethical limits and implications for social choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 333-350, October.
    13. Deegen, Peter, 2019. "The political economy of biodiversity in representative democracy: Between the expressive and the instrumental domain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    15. Szabó, Zoltán, 2011. "Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 37-44.

    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. Gelso, Brett R. & Peterson, Jeffrey M., 2005. "The influence of ethical attitudes on the demand for environmental recreation: incorporating lexicographic preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 35-45, April.
    2. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Olof Johansson-Stenman, 1998. "The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 429-442, April.
    5. Lockwood, Michael, 1997. "Integrated value theory for natural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 83-93, January.
    6. Nick Hanley & Clive Spash & Lorna Walker, 1995. "Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 249-272, April.
    7. R. Turner, 2007. "Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 253-269, May.
    8. Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 577-601, March.
    9. Christoph, Inken B. & Peter, Guenter & Rothe, Andrea & Salamon, Petra & Weber, Sascha A. & Weible, Daniela, 2011. "School Milk Consumption in Germany - What are Important Product Attributes for Children and Parents?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114294, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. repec:sae:envval:v:11:y:2002:i:2:p:145-161 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Lockwood, Michael, 1996. "Non-Compensatory Preference Structures In Non-Market Valuation Of Natural Area Policy," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 1-17, August.
    12. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents," Working Papers 2004.100, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    13. van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada & Munda, Giuseppe, 2000. "Alternative models of individual behaviour and implications for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 43-61, January.
    14. Spash, Clive L., 2000. "Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-215, August.
    15. Blamey, Russell, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the activation of environmental norms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 47-72, January.
    16. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    20. Szabó, Zoltán, 2011. "Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 37-44.
    21. 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.

    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:kap:enreec:v:9:y:1997:i:2:p:225-238. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.