Skip to main content
Log in

The Regrettable Necessity of Contingent Valuation

  • Published:
Journal of Cultural Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ordinary markets allow parties, not the state, to value property and projects. But they do not account for subjective value in such traditional contexts as condemnation. An awareness of these nonmarket values helps overcome any categorical opposition to the use of the contingent valuation method (CVM) to value cultural and environmental resources. But accurate CVM should measure all values, positive or negative, tononowners; it should apply generally to any substitute projects; and it should seek to account for diminishing marginal value of additional resource units. CVM should be used only to aggregate nonmarket preferences, not to skew the political debate to cultural or environmental objectives.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V. (1947) “Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices”. Journal of Farm Economics 29: 1181–1196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, Peter and Hausman, Jerry (1994) “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Richard A. (2002) “The Ebbs and Flows in Takings Law: Reflections on the Lake Tahoe Case”. Cato Supreme Court Review 1: 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Richard A. (1985) Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haneman, Michael (1994) “Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, Friedrich (1945) “The Uses of Knowledge in Society”. American Economic Review 35(4): 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Mancur (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin, Margaret Jane (1988) “The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings”. Columbia Law Review 88: 1667–1678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samples, Karl C. and Hollyer, James R. (1990) “Contingent Valuation of Wildlife Resources in the Presence of Substitutes and Complements”, in Rebecca L. Johnson and Gary V. Johnson (eds.), Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory and Applications. Westview Press, Boulder, 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. Mark, de Monchaux, John, and Riley, Charles A. II (eds.) (1997) Preserving the Built Heritage: Tools for Implementation. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolley, George S. et al. (1983) “Establishing and Valuing the Effects of Improved Visibility in the Eastern United States”, in Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Epstein, R.A. The Regrettable Necessity of Contingent Valuation. Journal of Cultural Economics 27, 259–274 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026375220210

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026375220210

Navigation