Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examined sequence effects on willingness-to-pay (WTP) when people evaluate a series of environmental goods. Each respondent evaluated five different environmental goods using WTP and four evaluative attitude ratings. There was a strong sequence effect: WTP was much larger for the first good than for goods evaluated afterward. Also, total WTP for the bundle of five goods depended on which good was evaluated first: the more highly valued the first good, the higher the total WTP for the bundle. The attitude ratings are shown to be more statistically efficient than WTP in measuring the relative importance of different environmental goods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow, K. J. (1982). “Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics,” Economic Inquiry 20, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J., P. R. Solow, E. E. Portney, R. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. (1993). “Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation.” Federal Register, 58, 4601 (Jan. 15).

  • Bettman, J. R., M. F. Luce, and J. W. Payne. (1998). “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research 25, 187–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., M. P. Welsh, and R. C. Bishop. (1990). “The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies,” Journal of Enironmental Economics and Management 25, 80–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookshire, D. S., R. C. d'Arge, W. D. Schulze, and M. A. Thayer. (1981). “Experiments in Valuing Public Goods.” In V. K. Smith ed., Advances in Applied Microeconomics. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R., N. E. Flores, and W. M. Hanemann. (1998). “Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 314–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, and N. F. Meade. (1996). Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Unpublished manuscript. San Diego: Department of Economics, University of California.

  • Carson, R. T., and R. C. Mitchell. (1995). “Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 155–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. (1996). “Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 337–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, U. (1998). “Evaluation of Nonmarket Goods: Recovering Unconditional Preferences,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman III, A. M. (1993). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, W. M., and H. J. Einhorn. (1987). “Expression Theory and the Preference Reversal Phenomena,” Psychological Review 94, 236–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R., S. Lichtenstein, and P. Slovic. (1993). “Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 177–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A. (ed). (1993). Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn, J. P., and J. B. Loomis. (1993). “Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25, 56–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn, J. P., and A. Randall. (1987). “Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test,” American Economic Review 79, 544–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Just, R. E., D. L. Hueth, and A. Schmitz. (1982). Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and D. Lovallo. (1993). “Timid Decisions and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking,” Management Science 39, 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and I. Ritov. (1994). “Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 5–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., I. Ritov, and D. Schkade. (1999). “Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions? An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 220–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., D. Schkade, I. Ritov, and C. Sunstein. (1999). Reversals of Judgment: The Effect of Cross-Category Comparisons on Intendedly Absolute Responses. Unpublished manuscript. Princeton University.

  • Kahneman, D., D. Schkade, and C. Sunstein. (1998). “Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 49–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J., A. Gonzalez-Caban, and R. Gregory. (1994). “Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?” Land Economics 70, 499–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magat, W. A., W. K. Viscusi, and J. Huber. (1988). “Paired Comparison and Contingent Valuation Approaches to Morbidity Risk Valuation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15, 395–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magat, W. A., J. Huber, and W. K. Viscusi. (2000). “An Iterative Choice Approach to Valuing Clean Lakes, Rivers, and Streams,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21.

  • Marks, L. E., and D. Algorn. (1998). “Psychophysical Scaling.” In M. H. Birnbaum ed., Measurement, Judgment, and Decision Making. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1994). “Contingent Valuation and Social Choice,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 689–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. (1999). “Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context-Dependence in the Generation of Preferences,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 146–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neill, H. R. (1995). “The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 393–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson. (1992). “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology 43, 87–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman, and D. Schkade. (1999). “Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 243–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., D. T. Wegener, and L. R. Fabrigar. (1997). “Attitudes and Attitude Change,” Annual Review of Psychology 48, 609–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D., and J. W. Payne. (1994). “How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 88–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D., J. W. Payne, W. Desvousges, and Fries. (2000). A Verbal Protocol Analysis of the Willingness-to-Pay for the Preserviation of a Natural Resource: The Problem of Question Format. Unpublished manuscript. Austin: Department of Management, University of Texas.

  • Schwarz, N. (1999). “Self-Reports: How the Questions Shape the Answers,” American Psychologist 54, 93–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1995). “The Construction of Preferences,” American Psychologist 50, 364–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K., W. A. Magat, and J. Huber. (1987). “An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuation of Multiple Health Risks,” The Rand Journal of Economics 18, 465–479.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University, USA

    John W. Payne

  2. University of Texas, Austin

    David A. Schkade

  3. Triangle Economic Research, Durham, NC

    William H. Desvousges & Chris Aultman

Authors
  1. John W. Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Schkade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William H. Desvousges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Aultman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Payne, J.W., Schkade, D.A., Desvousges, W.H. et al. Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21, 95–115 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026573527618

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026573527618

Search

Navigation