IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecstat/estat_0336-1454_2002_num_357_1_7671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

De la singularité de la méthode d'évaluation contingente

Author

Listed:
  • Stéphane Luchini

Abstract

[fre] De la singularité de la méthode d'évaluation contingente . . Les préoccupations sans cesse croissantes pour l'environnement ont conduit les pouvoirs publics à engager des politiques de sauvegarde du patrimoine naturel de plus en plus importantes. Cependant, de par la nature non marchande des biens environnementaux, l’évaluation économique d’une action publique dans ce domaine peut se révéler complexe. Confrontés à cette difficulté, les économistes ont recours, dans le cas où aucun marché ne permet la révélation indirecte des préférences, à un instrument d'évaluation spécifique: la méthode d'évaluation contingente. Cette méthode d'évaluation repose sur la réalisation d'une enquête au cours de laquelle on cherche à apprécier le montant que chacun serait prêt à payer, autrement dit le consentement à payer, pour la préservation ou la restauration d'un bien environnemental. Les fondements théoriques et les modalités pratiques de son application mettent en évidence la singularité de cette méthode dans l'analyse économique. En effet, elle revêt une double difficulté: évaluer sur la base de l'intérêt privé des objets de la sphère publique et obtenir des informations sur les préférences des agents économiques par des enquêtes, autrement dit des discours, plutôt que par l’observation d’actions sur des marchés. Cette singularité peut néanmoins être porteuse d'avancées significatives dans le champ de l'économie publique appliquée, mettant sur le devant de la scène la dualité consommateur-citoyen et l'utilisation d'enquêtes dans l'analyse économique. [eng] The Singularity of the Contingent Valuation Method . . Ever-growing fears for the environment have led the public authorities to undertake increasingly extensive policies to protect natural assets. However, the nonmarket nature of environmental goods can make the economic valuation of a public action in this field complicated. Economists deal with this problem by using a specific valuation instrument called the contingent valuation method when there is no market to indirectly reveal preferences. This valuation method is based on a survey during which the aim is to assess the amount that each person would be willing to pay, i. e. the willingness to pay, to protect and restore an environmental good. The singularity of this method in economic analysis is shown by the theoretical explanations and the practical ways of applying the method. It has two shortcomings: valuation based on the private worth of objects in the public sphere and obtaining information on economic players’ preferences by means of surveys, i. e. talking, rather than by observing actions on the markets. Nevertheless, this singularity could generate significant advances in applied public economics, placing consumer-citizen duality and the use of surveys in economic analysis centre stage. [ger] Besonderheit der Kontingenzevaluierung . . Die zunehmenden Sorgen um die Umwelt veranlasste die öffentliche Hand, immer umfassendere Politiken zum Erhalt des natürlichen Erbes in die Wege zu leiten. Da die Umweltgüter aber keine marktbestimmten Produkte sind, kann sich die wirtschaftliche Bewertung einer öffentlichen Aktion als komplex erweisen. Wenn kein Markt indirekt Aufschlüsse über die Präferenzen gibt, greifen die Wirtschaftswissenschaftler aufgrund dieser Schwierigkeit auf ein spezielles Evaluierungsinstrument zurück: die Methode der Kontingenzevaluierung. Bei dieser Evaluierungsmethode wird eine Umfrage über den Betrag durchgeführt, den jeder für den Erhalt oder die Rehabilitierung eines Umweltguts zu zahlen bereit wäre (mit anderen Worten über die Zahlungsbereitschaft). Die theoretischen Grundlagen und praktischen Modalitäten ihrer Anwendung machen deutlich, dass diese Methode in der wirtschaftlichen Analyse eine Sonderstellung einnimmt. Denn sie ist mit zwei Schwierigkeiten verbunden: Evaluierung auf der Basis des privaten Interesses der öffentlichen Güter sowie Erhalt von Informationen über die Präferenzen der Wirtschaftssubjekte mittels Umfragen, das heißt eher durch die Auswertung von Äußerungen als durch die Beobachtung von Aktionen an den Märkten. Allerdings kann diese Besonderheit erhebliche Fortschritte in der angewandten Volkswirtschaft bringen, da die Dualität Konsument/ Bürger und die Verwendung von Umfragen bei der Wirtschaftsanalyse in den Vordergrund rücken. [spa] De la singularidad del método de evaluación contingente . . Las preocupaciones cada vez crecientes por el medio ambiente han hecho que los poderes públicos lleven a cabo unas políticas de preservación del patrimonio natural cada vez más importantes. Sin embargo, por el carácter no comercial de los bienes medioambientales, la evaluación económica de una acción pública en ese campo puede resultar compleja. Frente a esta dificultad, los economistas han recurrido, en el caso en que ningún mercado permite la revelación indirecta de las preferencias, a una herramienta de evaluación específica: el método de evaluación contingente. Este método de evaluación descansa en la realización de una encuesta en la que se intenta apreciar el monto que cada cual estaría dispuesto a pagar, o sea el consentimiento a pagar, para la preservación o la restauración de un bien medioambiental. Los cimientos teóricos y las modalidades de su aplicación ponen de manifiesto la singularidad de ese método en el análisis económico. En efecto, este método presenta una doble dificultad: el evaluar, basándose en el interés privado, unos objetos de la esfera pública y el obtener unas informaciones sobre las preferencias de los actores económicos mediante unas encuestas, o sea unos discursos, antes que por la observación de unas acciones en unos mercados. Esa singularidad puede con todo desembocar en unos avances importantes en el ámbito de la economía pública aplicada, al poner de relieve la dualidad consumidor-ciudadano y la utilización de encuestas en el análisis económico.

Suggested Citation

  • Stéphane Luchini, 2002. "De la singularité de la méthode d'évaluation contingente," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 357(1), pages 141-152.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2002_num_357_1_7671
    DOI: 10.3406/estat.2002.7671
    Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.2002.7671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.2002.7671
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_2002_num_357_1_7671
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/estat.2002.7671?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glazer, Jacob & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2001. "Debates and Decisions: On a Rationale of Argumentation Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 158-173, August.
    2. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    3. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    4. Edi Karni & Philippe Mongin, 2000. "On the Determination of Subjective Probability by Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 233-248, February.
    5. Rubinstein,Ariel, 2000. "Economics and Language," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521789905, September.
    6. Claeys-Mekdade, C. & Geniaux, G. & Luchini, S., 1999. "Approche critique et mise en oeuvre de la methode d'evaluation contingente: un dialogue entre economiste et sociologue," G.R.E.Q.A.M. 99c09, Universite Aix-Marseille III.
    7. Dardis, Rachel, 1980. "The Value of a Life: New Evidence from the Marketplace," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1077-1082, December.
    8. Blomquist, Glenn C, 1979. "Value of Life Saving: Implications of Consumption Activity," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(3), pages 540-558, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1996. "Why Are Certain Properties of Binary Relations Relatively More Common in Natural Language?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 343-355, March.
    11. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    12. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
    14. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    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. Walid Oueslati & Nicole Madariaga & Julien Salanié, 2008. "Évaluation contingente d’aménités paysagères liées à un espace vert urbain. Une application au cas du parc Balzac de la ville d’Angers," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 87(2), pages 77-99.
    2. Jeanne Dachary-Bernard & Jean Cavailhès, 2004. "Une évaluation économique du paysage ; suivi d'un commentaire de Jean Cavailhès," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 373(1), pages 57-80.
    3. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    4. Brahim, DJEMACI, 2015. "Using a Contingent Valuation Approach for Improved Household Solid Waste Management in Algeria," MPRA Paper 68443, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Ali, Bouchrika & FakhriI, Issaoui & Habib, Jouber, 2014. "Evaluation of the Utility Function of an Environmental asset: Contingent valuation Method (CVM)," MPRA Paper 60421, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Göran Karlsson, 1996. "Outcome measurement in economic evaluation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(4), pages 279-296, July.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    4. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    5. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    6. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    8. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    9. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Liu, Xuemin, 2008. "Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 328-335, December.
    10. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-233, March.
    11. Rex Labao & Herminia Francisco & Dieldre Harder & Florence Santos, 2008. "Do Colored Photographs Affect Willingness to Pay Responses for Endangered Species Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 251-264, June.
    12. Lee, Chul-Yong & Heo, Hyejin, 2016. "Estimating willingness to pay for renewable energy in South Korea using the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 150-156.
    13. Lee, Choong-Ki & W. Mjelde, James, 2007. "Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: The case of the Korean DMZ," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 511-520, August.
    14. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    15. Tsigkou, Stavroula & Klonaris, Stathis, 2020. "Eliciting Farmers' Willingness to Pay for Innovative Fertilizer Against Soil Salinity: Comparison of Two Methods in a Field Survey," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 9, December.
    16. Giffoni, Francesco & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "Public support of science: A contingent valuation study of citizens' attitudes about CERN with and without information about implicit taxes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    17. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. David Worden & Getu Hailu & Kate Jones & Yu Na Lee, 2022. "The effects of bundling on livestock producers' valuations of environmentally friendly traits available through genomic selection," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 263-286, December.
    19. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    20. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2002_num_357_1_7671. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/estat .

    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.