Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T07:32:53.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Existence Value Appropriate for Regulatory Benefit–Cost Analysis?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2020

Seth Binder Open the ORCID record for Seth Binder [Opens in a new window]
Seth Binder*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Department of Environmental Studies, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN55057, USA, e-mail: binder@stolaf.edu
*
e-mail: binder@stolaf.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since its introduction to the field of environmental and natural resource economics in the late 1960s, existence value has faced several critiques from economists, psychologists, and philosophers. Critics have taken aim at the notion’s conceptual ambiguity and lack of connection to observable behavior, its incompatibility with cognitive processes and its sensitivity to cognitive biases, and ethical shortcomings in applying existence values to environmental decisionmaking. Unlike some critiques of existence value that draw on cognitive and ethical frameworks for decisionmaking fundamentally at odds with stated preference methods and benefit–cost analysis (BCA), this paper takes as given the use and adequacy of both. It focuses on challenges to existence value per se, with respect to the ability of existence value estimates to contribute to benefit–cost analyses in a way that is consistent with qualities of BCA that its proponents value: the objectivity, commensurability, and moral salience of the values analyzed. In light of the challenges, inclusion of existence value in benefit–cost analyses is found to inevitably compromise the quality of the BCA with respect to each criterion.

Keywords

benefit–cost analysisnon-use valueregulationspecies preservation
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Fall 2020 , pp. 441 - 456
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amiran, Edoh Y., and Hagen, Daniel A.. 2010. “The Scope Trials: Variation in Sensitivity to Scope and WTP with Directionally Bounded Utility Functions.”Journal of Environmental Economics & Management, 59: 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Trudy Ann. 1992. “Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Non-Market Goods.”Land Economics, 68(3): 302–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Richard T. 2012. “Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren’t Available.”Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4): 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Richard T., Groves, Theodore, and List, John A.. 2014. “Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice.”Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1(1/2): 171–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, Ronald G., and Harrison, Glenn W.. 1995. “The Measurement and Decomposition of Nonuse Values: A Critical Review.”Environmental & Resource Economics, 5(3): 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, Brett, Bateman, Ian, Binner, Amy, Ferrini, Silvia, and Fezzi, Carlo. 2019. “Structurally-Consistent Estimation of Use and Nonuse Values for Landscape-Wide Environmental Change.”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 98: 102256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, Catherine C., Grossman, Philip J., and Johnston, Rachel M.. 2005. “An Experimental Test of the Crowding Out Hypothesis.”Journal of Public Economics, 89: 1543–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Myrick A., Herriges, Joseph A., and Kling, Catherine L.. 2014. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, W Michael. 1994. “Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation.”The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Jerry. 2012. “Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless.”Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4): 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heberlein, Thomas A., Wilson, Matthew A., Bishop, Richard C., and Schaeffer, Nora Cate. 2005. “Rethinking the Scope Test as a Criterion for Validity in Contingent Valuation.”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herriges, Joseph A., Kling, Catherine L., Liu, Chih-Chen, and Tobias, Justin. 2010. “What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59(1): 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeon, Yongsik, and Herriges, Joseph A.. 2010. “Convergent Validity of Contingent Behavior Responses in Models of Recreation Demand.”Environmental and Resource Economics, 45: 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Per-Olov. 1992 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, Olof. 1998. “The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values.”Environmental and Resource Economics, 11(3/4): 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, Olof. 2012. “Are Most People Consequentialists?”Economics Letters, 115(2): 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Robert J., Boyle, Kevin J., Adamowicz, Wiktor, Bennett, Jeff, Brouwer, Roy, Cameron, Trudy Ann, Hanemann, W Michael, et al. 2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.”Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2): 319–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Knetsch, Jack L.. 1992. “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1): 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Ritov, Ilana, and Schkade, David A.. 1999. “Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions? An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues.”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3): 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiser, David A. 2019. “The Missing Benefits of Clean Water and the Role of Mismeasured Pollution.”Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 6(4): 669–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiser, David A., Kling, Catherine L., and Shapiro, Joseph S.. 2019. “The Low But Uncertain Measured Benefits of US Water Quality Policy.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(12): 5262–5269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kling, Catherine L., Phaneuf, Daniel J., and Zhao, Jinhua. 2012. “From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?”Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopp, Raymond J. 1992. “Why Existence Value Should Be Used in Cost-Benefit Analysis.”Cost-Benefit Analysis and Public Policy, 11(1): 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krutilla, John V. 1967. “Conservation Reconsidered.”The American Economic Review, 57(4): 777–786.Google Scholar
McConnell, K. E. 1997. “Does Altruism Undermine Existence Value?”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32(1): 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Daniel. 1999. “Rationality for Economists?”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3): 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, Paul. 1993. Is Sympathy an Economic Value? Philosophy, Economics, and the Contingent Valuation Method. In Hausman, Jerry A. (Ed.) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment: 417–441. New York: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nepal, Mani, Berrens, Robert P., and Bohara, Alok K.. 2009. “Assessing Perceived Consequentiality: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey on Global Climate Change.”International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics, 14(P09): 14–29.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. (1981) Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, John W., Bettman, James R., and Schkade, David A.. 1999. “Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code.”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3): 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portney, Paul R. 1994. “The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care.”The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Eric A., and Sunstein, Cass R.. 2017. “Moral Commitments in Cost-Benefit Analysis,” Virginia Law Review, 103:1809–1860Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2004. Catastrophe: Risk and Response. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, John. 1993. “Existence Value and Benefit–Cost Analysis: A Third View.”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12(1): 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rekola, Mika. 2003. “Lexicographic Preferences in Contingent Valuation: A Theoretical Framework with Illustrations.”Land Economics, 79(2): 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Donald H., and Nelson, Robert H.. 1992. “Why Existence Value Should Not Be Used in Cost-Benefit Analysis.”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(1): 116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sælensminde, Kjartan. 2006. “Causes and Consequences of Lexicographic Choices in Stated Choice Studies.”Ecological Economics, 59(3): 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagoff, Mark. 1986. “Values and Preferences.”Ethics, 96(2): 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagoff, Mark. 1994. “Should Preferences Count?”Land Economics, 70(2): 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagoff, Mark. 2006. “An Aggregate Measure of What? A Reply to Zerbe, Bauman, and Finkle.”Ecological Economics, 60(1): 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, AK. 1977. “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory.”Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6(4): 317–344.Google Scholar
Stevens, T. H., Belkner, R., Dennis, D., Kittredge, D., and Willis, C.. 2000. “Comparison of Contingent Valuation and Conjoint Analysis in Ecosystem Management.”Ecological Economics, 32(1): 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2002 The Cost-Benefit State: The Future of Regulatory Protection. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2005. “Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment.”Ethics, 115(2): 351–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2014. “The Real World of Cost-Benefit Analysis: Thirty-Six Questions (and Almost as Many Answers).”Columbia Law Review, 114(1): 167–211.Google Scholar
Vatn, Arild. 2004. “Environmental Valuation and Rationality.”Land Economics, 80(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veisten, Knut, Navrud, Ståle, and Valen, Johnny SY.. 2006. “Lexicographic Preference in Biodiversity Valuation: Tests of Inconsistencies and Willingness to Pay.”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(2): 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, John C., Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., Houtven, George L Von, and Gelso, Brett R.. 2008. “Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data to Estimate the Non-Market Value of Ecological Services: An Assessment of the State of the Science.”Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(5): 872–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, John C., Phaneuf, Daniel J., Dumas, Christopher F., Herstine, Jim, Hill, Jeffrey, and Buerger, Bob. 2010. “Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Chage: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands.”Environmental and Resource Economics, 45: 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbe, Richard O., Bauman, Yoram, and Finkle, Aaron. 2006a. “A Preference for an Aggregate Measure: A Reply to Sagoff.”Ecological Economics, 60(1): 14–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbe, Richard O., Bauman, Yoram, and Finkle, Aaron. 2006b. “An Aggregate Measure for Benefit–Cost Analysis.”Ecological Economics, 58(3): 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar