Culture, Communication, and the Information Problem in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Case Study of a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme

Contingent valuation (CV) is a technique for providing estimates of the monetary value of public goods which have no market. The authors consider whether the information provided for the hypothetical market enables respondents to express their ‘true’ preference for the ‘good’, or whether their willingness to pay is dependent on the quantity and quality of information provided in the survey. They argue that a cultural perspective in which the CV transaction is viewed as a communicative ‘dialogue-at-a-distance’ between researchers and respondents through the medium of the CV text provides more insight into the encoding and decoding of the ‘good’—in this case an agri-environment policy to enhance nature conservation on an internationally significant wetland in South East England. They argue that, within its own scientific parameters, CV surveys are unable to capture fully all the aspects of the ‘good’ to be valued. The problem is more acute when the ‘good’ represents the uncertain outcomes (in terms of landscape and biodiversity) of a policy. Without a complete specification, which may well be an impossibility for environmental ‘goods’, respondents are able to bring their own readings to their interpretation of the scenario. This means that CV researchers cannot know precisely what ‘good’ respondents were attempting to ‘value’. The authors follow the production of the CV scenario for the valuation of the Pevensey Levels Wildlife Enhancement Scheme; conduct a critical discourse analysis to demonstrate how the linguistic and visual representations inevitably fulfil rhetorical functions; and then present the deliberations of respondents to the CV survey who participated in in-depth discussion groups after completion of the survey.

[1]  J. Burgess,et al.  "I struggled with this money business”: Respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation , 2000 .

[2]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility , 1988 .

[3]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .

[4]  John C. Bergstrom,et al.  Information Effects in Contingent Markets , 1989 .

[5]  J. Burgess The Production and Consumption of Environmental Meanings in the Mass Media: A Research Agenda for the 1990s , 1990 .

[6]  Contested meanings: the consumption of news about nature conservation , 1991 .

[7]  N. Hanley,et al.  Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation , 1995 .

[8]  G. Myers Out of the Laboratory and Down to the Bay , 1996 .

[9]  Carolyn Harrison,et al.  Capturing values for nature: ecological, economic and cultural perspectives , 1999 .

[10]  Social constructions of nature: A case study of the conflicts over Rainham Marshes SSSI , 1994 .

[11]  Jacquelin Burgess,et al.  Social Constructions of Nature: A Case Study of Conflicts over the Development of Rainham Marshes , 1994 .

[12]  D. Pearce,et al.  Cost?Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy , 1998 .

[13]  A. Vatn,et al.  Choices without Prices without Apologies , 1994 .

[14]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1987 .

[15]  T. Hoban,et al.  Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users, and Non-users , 1995 .

[16]  J. Burgess,et al.  Environmental Communication and the Cultural Politics of Environmental Citizenship , 1998 .

[17]  I. Hodge,et al.  Evaluating the environmentally sensitive areas: the value of rural environments and policy relevance , 1998 .

[18]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[19]  Paul S. Edelman,et al.  The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 , 1990, Pace Environmental Law Review.

[20]  Jacquelin Burgess,et al.  Exploring Environmental Values through the Medium of Small Groups: 1. Theory and Practice , 1988 .

[21]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[22]  David J. Bjornstad,et al.  The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issues and research needs. , 1996 .

[23]  R. Gregory,et al.  Valuing Risks to the Environment , 1996 .

[24]  Guy Garrod,et al.  Methodological issues in valuing the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas , 1999 .

[25]  J. Dixon,et al.  Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation , 1985 .

[26]  John Davis,et al.  MEASURING NON-USE VALUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS USING THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD: PROBLEMS OF INFORMATION AND COGNITION AND THE APPLICATION OF COGNITIVE QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN METHODS , 1995 .

[27]  J Clark,et al.  Discounted knowledges: farmers» and residents» understandings of nature conservation goals and policies , 1998 .

[28]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation , 1996 .

[29]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[30]  Jacquelin Burgess,et al.  Exploring Environmental Values through the Medium of Small Groups: 2. Illustrations of a Group at Work , 1988 .

[31]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach , 1993 .

[32]  K. G. Willis,et al.  Benefits and Costs of the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme: A Case Study of the Pevensey Levels , 1996 .

[33]  Ken Cole,et al.  Why Economists Disagree: The Political Economy of Economics , 1983 .