Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Contingent Valuation and the Policymaking Process: An Application to Used Nuclear Fuel in the United States

  • Deven E. Carlson (a1), Joseph T. Ripberger (a2), Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (a3), Carol L. Silva (a4), Kuhika Gupta (a5), Robert P. Berrens (a6) and Benjamin A. Jones (a7)...
Abstract

Survey-based contingent valuation (CV) techniques are commonly used to value the potential effects of a policy change when market-based valuation of those effects is not possible. The results of these analyses are often intended to inform policy decisions, which are made within the context of formal policymaking institutions. These institutions are typically designed to reduce the large number of potential options for addressing any given policy problem to a binary choice between the continuation of current policy and a single, specified alternative. In this research we develop an approach for conducting CV exercises in a manner consistent with the decision structure typically faced by policymakers. The data generated from this approach allow for an estimate of willingness to pay (WTP) for a defined policy alternative, relative to leaving policy unchanged, which we argue is of direct interest to policymakers. We illustrate our approach within the context of policy governing the storage of used nuclear fuel in the United States. We value the policy option of constructing an interim storage facility relative to continuation of current policy, wherein used nuclear fuel is stored on-site at or near commercial nuclear generating plants. We close the paper with a discussion of the implications for future research and the role of CV in the policymaking process.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Contingent Valuation and the Policymaking Process: An Application to Used Nuclear Fuel in the United States
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Contingent Valuation and the Policymaking Process: An Application to Used Nuclear Fuel in the United States
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Contingent Valuation and the Policymaking Process: An Application to Used Nuclear Fuel in the United States
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*e-mail: decarlson@ou.edu
References
Hide All
Arrow Kenneth J. (1951). Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 19(4), 404437.
Arrow Kenneth, Solow Robert, Portney Paul R., Leamer Edward E., Radner Roy & Schuman Howard (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 46014614.
Benson Melinda Harm (2015). Reconceptualizing Environmental Challenges – Is Resilience the New Narrative? Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law, 21, 99127.
Benson Melinda Harm & Craig Robin Kundis (2014). The End of Sustainability. Society and Natural Resources, 27(7), 777782.
Blomquist Glenn C., Dickie Mark & O’Conor Richard M. (2011). Willingness to Pay for Improving Fatality Risks and Asthma Symptoms: Values for Children and Adults of All Ages. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(2), 410425.
Blumenschein Karen, Johannesson Magnus, Blomquist Glenn C., Liljas Bengt & O’Conor Richard M. (1998). Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation. Southern Economic Journal, 65(1), 169177.
Brady Henry E., Verba Sidney & Schlozman Kay Lehman (1995). Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271294.
Brant Rollin (1990). Assessing Proportionality in the Proportional Odds Model for Ordinal Logistic Regression. Biometrics, 46(4), 11711178.
BRC (Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future). 2012 Report to the Secretary of Energy. Washington, DC: Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. www.brc.gov.
Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John (1994). Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a “Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up” Questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(3), 218234.
Carson Richard & Czajkowski Mikolaj (2014). The Discrete Choice Experiment Approach to Environmental Contingent Valuation. In Hess S. & Daly A. (Eds.), Handbook of Choice Modelling (pp. 202235). Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Carson Richard T. & Groves Theodore (2007). Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181210.
Carson Richard T. & Louviere Jordan J. (2011). A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49(4), 539559.
Castle Emery N. & Berrens Robert P. (1993). Endangered Species, Economic Analysis, and the Safe Minimum Standard. Northwest Environmental Journal, 9(1–2), 108130.
Congressional Budget Office (2016). The 2016 Long-Term Budget Outlook: July 2016. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
Cosens Barbara, Gunderson Lance, Allen Craig & Benson Melinda Harm (2014). Identifying Legal, Ecological and Governance Obstacles, and Opportunities for Adapting to Climate Change. Sustainability, 6(4), 23382356.
Duffield John W. & Patterson David A. (1991). Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Land Economics, 67(2), 225239.
Freeman A. Myrick III, Herriges Joseph A. & Kling Catherine L. (2014). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: RFF Press.
Freudenburg William R.1991 Organizational Management of Long-Term Risks: Implications for Risk and Safety in the Transportation of Nuclear Wastes. NWPO-TN-013-91. Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, Carson City, NV.
Haab Timothy C. & McConnell Kenneth E. (1997). Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32(2), 251270.
Haab Timothy C. & McConnell Kenneth E. (2002). Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hanley Nick, Czajkowski Mikolaj, Hanley-Nickolls Rose & Redpath Steve (2010). Economic Values of Species Management Options in Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Hen Harriers in Scotland. Ecological Economics, 70(1), 107113.
Johannesson Magnus, Blomquist Glenn C., Blumenschein Karen, Johansson Per-Olov, Liljas Bengt & O’conor Richard M. (1999). Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 18(1), 2132.
Jones Benjamin A., Berrens Robert P., Jenkins-Smith Hank C., Silva Carol L., Carlson Deven E., Ripberger Joseph T., Gupta Kuhika & Carlson Nina (2016). Valuation in the Anthropocene: Exploring Options for Alternative Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. Water Resources and Economics, 14, 1330.
Jones Bryan D. (2001). Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lettenmaier Dennis P. (2008). Have We Dropped the Ball on Water Resources Research? Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 134(6), 491492.
Milly P. C. D., Betancourt Julio, Falkenmark Malin, Hirsch Robert, Kundzewicz Zbigniew, Lettenmaier Dennis & Stouffer Ronald (2008). Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science, 319(5863), 573574.
Mitchell Robert Cameron & Carson Richard T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
National Research Council (2006). Going the Distance?: Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Rechard Rob P., Price Laura L. & Kalinina Elena (2015). Integrating Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from Generation to Disposal. Sandia National Laboratories, SAND2015-5503, Albuquerque, NM.
Sen Amartya (1970). The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal. Journal of Political Economy, 78(1), 152157.
Simon Herbert A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Viscusi W. Kip (2015). Reference-Dependence Effects in Benefit Assessment: Beyond the WTA–WTP Dichotomy and WTA–WTP Ratios. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(1), 187206.
Welsh Michael, Bishop Richard C., Phillips Marcia L. & Baumgartner Robert M. (1995). GCES Non-Use Value Study: GCES Non-Use Values Final Study Report. Madison, WI: Hagler Bailly Consulting, University Park.
Wilson Patrick I. (1999). Wolves, Politics, and the Nez Perce: Wolf Recovery in Central Idaho and the Role of Native Tribes. Nat. Resources J., 39, 543.
Workman Samuel (2015). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy in the US Government: How Congress and Federal Agencies Process Information and Solve Problems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
  • ISSN: 2194-5888
  • EISSN: 2152-2812
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 8
Total number of PDF views: 93 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 546 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd February 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.