[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v76y2000i3p355-373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Four Hicksian Welfare Measures for a Public Good: A Contingent Valuation Investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Ian J. Bateman
  • Ian H. Langford
  • Alistair Munro
  • Chris Starmer
  • Robert Sugden
Abstract
Using equivalent loss (the monetary loss equivalent to a proposed amenity reduction, EL) and equivalent gain (the gain equivalent to a proposed amenity increase, EG) alongside traditional welfare measures in a contingent valuation study of traffic disamenity, we report an experiment designed to test theoretical explanations of the well-known disparity between compensating surplus and equivalent surplus measures of welfare. No compelling evidence is found in favor of loss aversion as a cause of the disparity. Meanwhile, as valuation measures, the performance of EL is similar to the traditional willingness to pay for a gain, while EG performs poorly.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian J. Bateman & Ian H. Langford & Alistair Munro & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2000. "Estimating Four Hicksian Welfare Measures for a Public Good: A Contingent Valuation Investigation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(3), pages 355-373.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:76:y:2000:i:3:p:355-373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147034
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    2. Mark Wardman & Abigail Bristow, 2008. "Valuations of aircraft noise: experiments in stated preference," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 459-480, April.
    3. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:171-187. is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Bateman, Ian & Kahneman, Daniel & Munro, Alistair & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 2005. "Testing competing models of loss aversion: an adversarial collaboration," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1561-1580, August.
    5. Stefan Gössling & Andreas Humpe & Todd Litman & Daniel Metzler, 2019. "Effects of Perceived Traffic Risks, Noise, and Exhaust Smells on Bicyclist Behaviour: An Economic Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Abigail Bristow & Mark Wardman & V. Chintakayala, 2015. "International meta-analysis of stated preference studies of transportation noise nuisance," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 71-100, January.
    7. Sotirios Thanos & Abigail L. Bristow & Mark R. Wardman, 2015. "Residential Sorting And Environmental Externalities: The Case Of Nonlinearities And Stigma In Aviation Noise Values," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 468-490, June.
    8. Víctor Gómez-Valenzuela & Francisco Alpízar & Katerin Ramirez & Solhanlle Bonilla-Duarte & Harro van Lente, 2021. "At a Conservation Crossroad: The Bahoruco-Jaragua-Enriquillo Biosphere Reserve in the Dominican Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-20, October.
    9. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2015. "Reference dependence, consequentiality and social desirability in value elicitation: A study of fair labor labeling," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    11. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2002. "Subjective Questions to Measure Welfare and Well-being," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-020/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2015. "Fair farming: Preferences for fair labor certification using four elicitation methods," MPRA Paper 62546, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    14. H. Lorne Carmichael & W. Bentley Macleod, 2006. "Welfare Economics with Intransitive Revealed Preferences: A Theory of the Endowment Effect," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 8(2), pages 193-218, May.
    15. Gowdy, John M. & Mayumi, Kozo, 2001. "Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 223-237, November.
    16. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:uwp:landec:v:76:y:2000:i:3:p:355-373. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.