Article thumbnail

TINKERING WITH VALUATION ESTIMATES: IS THERE A FUTURE FOR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MEASURES?

By John M. Halstead, Ju-Chin Huang, Thomas H. Stevens and Wendy Harper

Abstract

This paper examines various methods proposed in the literature to calibrate welfare measures, especially willingness to accept and willingness to pay, derived from contingent valuation surveys. Through simulation and a case study, we hope to provide guidance for empirical welfare measurement in response to the theoretical dispute regarding WTA/WTP disparities.Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

OAI identifier:
Downloaded from http://purl.umn.edu/19724

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2000). A Comparison of Direct Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities: A Case Study of the White Mountain National Forest.” (Ph.D. dissertation,
  2. (2001). A New Explanation for the WTP/WTA Disparity,
  3. (1976). Consumer's surplus without apology,
  4. (2002). Contingent Valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history.
  5. (1990). Economic Valuation of Changes in Visibility: A State of the Science Assessment for NAPAP.”
  6. (1996). Electricity Restructuring and Regional Air Pollution. Discussion Paper 96-17-REV2. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
  7. (1990). Environmental Policy Implications of Disparities between Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded Measures of Values.”
  8. (1974). Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility.”
  9. (1999). Off-Site Value of Visibility: New Hampshire’s White Mountain Case Study.” (M.S. thesis,
  10. (1998). On the Way to Retail Competition.” Resources.
  11. (2001). Preparing for a Changing Climate. Report of the New England Regional Assessment Group.
  12. (1987). The Disparity Between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept Measures of Value,
  13. (2001). Valuation of Environmental Goods: Correcting for Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies Based on Willingness-to-Accept.
  14. (1982). Valuing Public Goods:
  15. (1991). Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?