Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 1998-05
Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a Lulu: the Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility
This article examines an application of the contingent valuation (CV) method to Abstract measure the compensation required for the siting of a hazardous waste disposal
facility. First, the risk valuation literature on the siting of a hazardous waste facility
is discussed. In this section, the authors discuss past studies using contingent
valuation techniques and the importance of subjective risk assessment. Second, a
contingent valuation survey is performed to measure willingness to accept (WTA)
using a dichotomous choice referendum framework. Using these data, the authors
test for the internal consistency of the responses and calculate the WTA for siting a
hazardous waste disposal facility. The authors conclude that CV can be used to
estimate reasonable measures of WTA and is a potentially useful tool for assessing
the compensation required to site a hazardous waste disposal facility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arrow, K., R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Radner, and H. Schuman.1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register58:4602-14.
2.
Bartik, Timothy J.1988. Evaluating the benefits of non-marginal reductions in pollution using information on defensive expenditures. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management15:111-27.
3.
Bishop, Richard, and Thomas Heberlein .1979. Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, December, 926-30.
4.
Brookshire, David S., Don L. Coursey, and William D. Schulze .1986. Experiments in the solicitation of public and private values. In Advances in behavioral economics , edited by L. Green and J. Kasel.New York: Brookshire.
5.
Cameron, Trudy Ann.1991. Interval estimates of non-market resource values from referendum contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics67:413-21.
6.
Cook, Phillip, and Daniel A. Graham .1977. The demand for insurance and protection: The case of irreplaceable commodities. Quarterly Journal of Economics91 (February):143-56.
7.
Courant, Paul N., and Richard C. Porter.1981. Averting expenditure and the cost of pollution. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management8:321-29.
8.
duVair, Pierre, and John Loomis. 1995. Household valuation of alternative levels of hazardous waste risk reductions: An application of the referendum format contingent valuation method. Journal of Environmental Management39:143-55.
9.
Freeman, A. Myrick.1993. The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
10.
Greene, William.1995. LIMDEP. New York: Econometric Software.
11.
Groothuis, Peter A., and John C. Whitehead .1995. Including a middle response in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Paper presented at the Midwest Economic Association Meetings, Cincinnati, OH, April.
12.
Hammack, Judd, and Gardner Mallard Brown.1974. Waterfowl and wetlands: Toward bioeconomic analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
—. 1991. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ? American Economic Review, June, 635-47.
14.
Harrison, Glenn W., and James C. Lesley .1996. Must contingent valuation surveys cost so much? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31 (July): 79-95.
15.
Inhaber, Herbert.1992. OfNIMBYs, LULUs, and NIMTOOs. Public Interest no. 107:52-64.
16.
Johannesson, Magnus, Per-Olov Jahnsson, Bengt Kristrom, and Ulf-G Gerdtham.1993. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: Further results. Journal of Health Economics12:95-108.
17.
Kunreuther, Howard, and Douglas Easterling .1990. Are risk-benefit tradeoffs possible in siting hazardous facilities? American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings80 (2):252-56.
18.
Loomis, John B.1987. Expanding contingent value sample estimate to aggregate benefit estimates: Current practices and proposed solutions. Land Economics63:396-402.
19.
McClelland, Gary H., William D. Schulze, and Brian Hurd.1990. The effect of risk beliefs on property values: A case study of a hazardous waste site. Risk Analysis10:485-97.
20.
Mitchell, Robert, and Richard T. Carson.1986. Property rights, protest, and the siting of hazardous waste facilities. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings76 (May):291-94.
21.
—. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
22.
Roberts, Roland K., Peggy V Douglas, and William M. Park.1991. Estimating external costs of municipal landfill siting through contingent valuation analysis: A case study. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, December, 155-65.
23.
Sffilth, V. Kerry, and William H. Desvousges.1986a The value of avoiding a LULU: Hazardous waste disposal sites. Review of Economics and Statistics68:293-99.
24.
—. 1986b. Averting behavior: Does it exist? Economics Letters20:291-96.
25.
Sun, Henglun, John C. Bergstrom, and Jeffery H. Dorfman .1992. Estimating the benefits of groundwater contamination control. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, December, 63-71.
26.
Swallow, Stephen K., James J. Oplauch, and Thomas F. Weaver .1992. Siting noxious facilities: An approach that integrates technical, economic, and political considerations . Land Economics68 (3):283-301.
27.
Viscusi, W. Kip.1989. Prospective reference theory: Towards an explanation of the paradoxes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty2:235-64.
28.
Viscusi, W. Kip, and William N. Evans .1990. Utility functions that depend on health status: Estimates and economic implications. American Economic Review80 (3):353-63.
29.
Whitehead, John C.1992. Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: Implications for valuing a sea turtle protection program. Applied Economics24:981-88.
30.
Whitehead, John C., Peter A. Groothuis, and Glenn C. Blomquist .1993. Testing for nonresponse and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Analysis of a combination phone/mail survey. Economics Letters41:215-20.
