What's the Use? Welfare Estimates from Revealed Preference Models When Weak Complementarity Does Not Hold

The focal point of the revealed preference (RP) valuation literature, including recreation demand and random utility maximization (RUM) models, has been on eliciting the "use" value associated with environmental amenities, i.e., that portion of value associated with direct use of a resource. MA¤ler's (1974) concept of weak complementarity is typically invoked to justify this focus. Indeed, weak complementarity explicitly or implicitly underlies most of the RP literature. This paper considers the measurement of welfare in RP models when weak complementarity does not hold. In particular, the Kuhn-Tucker (KT) framework (e.g., Phaneuf et al. 2000) does not impose weak complementarity a priori, raising the possibility of rejecting weak complementarity in estimation and the question as to what is the proper welfare measure to report. Although existence value cannot be measured, the authors argue that in some circumstances there are components of total value outside of use value which RP methods may help to illuminate.

[1]  Daniel J. Phaneuf,et al.  Estimation and Welfare Calculations in a Generalized Corner Solution Model with an Application to Recreation Demand , 2000, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[2]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  The Dual Structure of Incomplete Demand Systems , 1989 .

[3]  T. Wales,et al.  Estimation of consumer demand systems with binding non-negativity constraints☆ , 1983 .

[4]  N. Bockstael,et al.  Welfare Measurement in the Household Production Framework , 1983 .

[5]  Nicholas E. Flores.  Non-paternalistic altruism and welfare economics , 2002 .

[6]  Richard K. Green,et al.  Choices and Consequences: Comment , 1981 .

[7]  U. Ebert.  Evaluation of Nonmarket Goods: Recovering Unconditional Preferences , 1998 .

[8]  K. McConnell,et al.  Exploring existence value , 1987 .

[9]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Three Approaches to Defining "Existence" or "Non-Use" Value under Certainty , 1993 .

[10]  D. Larson.  Further results on willingness to pay for nonmarket goods , 1992 .

[11]  R. Rowe,et al.  Managing Air Quality And Scenic Resources At National Parks And Wilderness Areas , 1982 .

[12]  C. Kling,et al.  Valuing Environmental Quality: Weak Complementarity with Sets of Goods , 1988 .

[13]  Daniel J. Phaneuf,et al.  Choice Set Definition Issues in a Kuhn-Tucker Model of Recreation Demand , 1999, Marine Resource Economics.

[14]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: A critical review , 1995 .

[15]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Public Goods as Characteristics of Non-Market Commodities , 1997 .

[16]  R. King,et al.  Choices and Consequences , 1979 .

[17]  J. Herriges,et al.  Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics , 1999 .

[18]  Dodo J. Thampapillai,et al.  Environmental Economics , 2019 .

[19]  R. Pollak,et al.  Demand System Specification and Estimation , 1995 .

[20]  N. Bockstael,et al.  Public Goods as Characteristics of Non-Market Commodities, Economic Journal , 1993 .

[21]  J. Herriges,et al.  Corner Solution Models of Recreation Demand: A Comparison of Competing Frameworks , 1999 .

[22]  J. Hausman.  Exact Consumer's Surplus and Deadweight Loss , 1981 .

[23]  J. Shonkwiler,et al.  Brand Choice and Purchase Frequency Revisited: An Application to Recreation Behavior , 2000 .

[24]  D. Larson.  Recovering weakly complementary preferences , 1991 .

[25]  Jon R. Neill,et al.  Another theorem on using market demands to determine willingness to pay for non-traded goods , 1988 .

[26]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  The Theory and Measurement of Passive‐Use Value , 2001 .

[27]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.