Evaluation of the Utility Function of an Environmental asset: Contingent valuation Method (CVM)

Ali, Bouchrika and FakhriI, Issaoui and Habib, Jouber (2014): Evaluation of the Utility Function of an Environmental asset: Contingent valuation Method (CVM).

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to introduce the Contingent valuation Method (CVM) as an efficient method allowing to modify the utility level, of an economic agent to following the consumption of environmental goods. In the absence of the market for natural assets, the CVM allows us to create a hypothetical market to evaluate the economic value of those assets by purchase and sale transactions. However, this valuation can be constrained with the quality problem of the physical nature of those environmental assets. The theoretical framework had shown that a change in the utility function and consumer surplus on the one hand, price and profit of the monopoly on the other hand, is be needed to keep the measures of economic efficiency and social equity.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: CVM, Environmental assets, utility function, willingness to pay (WTP)
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q58 - Government Policy

References

- Bonnieux F, Goffe P, Vernersch D (1995). La méthode d’évaluation contingente : Application à la qualité des eaux littorales. Économie et prévision, N° 117, 89-106.

- Carson R. T. (2000). Contingent valuation : A user’s guide. Environnemental Science and Technology, volume 34, numéro 8, pages 1413-1418.

- Desaigues B, Point P (1993) : Economie de patrimoine naturel. La valorisation des actifs du patrimoine naturel. Economica.

- Desaigues, B., & Point, P. (1990). Les méthodes de détermination d'indicateurs de valeur ayant la dimension de prix pour les composantes du patrimoine naturel. Revue économique, 269-319.

- Fadden. D, Leonard G. (1993), Issues in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Products: Methodologies for Data Collection and Analysis, volume Contingent Valuation: A Critial Assessment, pp. 165-215, New York: North-Holland: Hausman.

- Georgiou. S, Whittington. D, Pearce. D, Moran. D (1997). Economic values and the environment in the developing world. Edward Elgar publishing limited.

- Hanemann. W.M (1984). Welfare Evaluation in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, n°66, pp. 335-379.

- Heckman. J (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation sample selection and limited dependent variable and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of economic and social measurement V.5 n°4

- Lescuyer. G (2000). Evaluation économique et gestion viable de la forêt tropicale. Réflexion sur un mode de coordination des usages d’une forêt de l’est-Cameroun. Thèse, Paris, EHESS, 2 volumes, 417 et 215 pages.

- Luchini S (2002). De la singularité de la méthode d’évaluation contingente. Economie et Statistique N°357-358. GREQAM-IDEP, CNRS. Pp 141-152..

- Millot. V (2007). Modèles à variable dépendante qualitative. Université de Cergy-Pontoise.

- Mishan, E.J. (1988). IV. Cost-Benefit Analysis. Unwin Hyman, London, Ltd. UK.

- Mitchell. R. C, Carson. R.T., (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Products: the Contingent Valuation Methods. Paper prepared for Resources for the Future, Washington D. C.: RFF, pp. 222-463.

- Munasinghe (1992) Addressing Climate Change and Sustaina Development Challenges Together: The Role of Statistics. Institute for Development MIND.

- Seller. C, Chavas. S (1985) Valuation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change : A Comparison of Non-Market Techniques. Land Economics. Vol. 61. pp.156-75

- Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Economics of the Public Sector. W. W. Norton & Company.

- Terra. S (2005). Guide de bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre de la méthode d’évaluation contingente. Paris : Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable, 83 p.

- Tirole. J (1988). The theory of industrial organization. The MIT press Cambridge Massachusetts Institute of Technology .London

- Turner R.K, Pearce D, Bateman I (1994). Environmental Economics, London, Harvester Wheatsheat.

- Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice , Science, n° 211, pp. 453-458.

- Vergès, P. (1994). Approche du noyau central : propriétés quantitatives et structurales. In Structures et transformations des représentations sociales, Textes de base en Sciences Sociales, Chapiter 8, pp. 233-253. Lausanne : Delachaux et Niestlé.

- Whittington D, Lauria. D, Mu. X (1991). A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha; Nigeria. Word Development. N°19, PP 179-198.

- Whittington. D, Briscote. J, Mu. X, Barron.W (1990). Estimating willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: A case study of the use of contingent valuation survey in southern Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural Change, pp. 392-311.