The article Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation by Hanemann discusses the primary issues of the valuation method to decrease the influence on the environment (Hanemann 20). Hanemann underlines the importance of contingent valuation as an efficient practice from different perspectives (20). Moreover, Hanemann claims that the surveys are the primary value generators among the consumers (28). Furthermore, the imperfections of the implications of the contingent valuation and its compliance with the economic theories are discussed. In the end, the conclusion summarizes the primary findings of the research. I entirely agree with the fact that contingent valuation remains a necessity while being able to protect the environment from pollution. Despite having some criticism regarding compliance with the economic theory, the contingent valuation contributes to the improvement of the economic and ecological conditions of the world and the ability to modify the current opinions about the environment.
Firstly, the article is coherent and worth analyzing. I completely agree with the fact that contingent valuation has a positive influence on the economic and social states of the country and actively supports its implementation. Hanemann claims that it helps determine “the worth” of the values to the society (20). For instance, contingent valuation is used to increase the importance of cultural heritage (Baez and Herrero 235). Moreover, the contingent valuation is being considered as being used in the medical field (spinal surgery) (Haefeli et al. 575). Lastly, the economic analysis of the ecosystem remains a necessity to underline its importance (Holmes et al. 19). In the end, contingent valuation has to be implemented, as it is efficient and can benefit the environment, society, and economy.
Secondly, I agree with the fact that the implementation of the contingent valuation helps form positive perceptions about the necessity of caring for the environment among members of society. Regarding this matter, Hanemann suggests that the surveys are the generators of the bottom decisions among the consumers and affect their preferences (28). Furthermore, Simons and Winson-Geideman claim that contingent valuation survey helps improve the customers’ perceptions about the market and influence their opinion (193). Additionally, contingent valuation helps cultivate the views about the particular matter and decreases uncertainty (Dominquez-Torreiro and Solino 1). Lastly, it is apparent that contingent valuation policy is essential, as it improves the understanding of the importance of the environment in society.
Finally, I agree with the fact that the contingent valuation has some difficulties in implementation, but the careful evaluation allows developing the standard approach. In this instance, Hanemann discusses that contingent valuation has been dramatically criticized due to the lack of correspondence with the economic theory (32). Nonetheless, Hanemann underlines the importance of these arguments but concludes that contingent valuation can be utilized as a primary tool to change the value of the environment (38). Moreover, Veisten implies that despite being questionable, the positivist movement of contingent valuation continues to grow, as it improves the quality of the environment (204). In this instance, contingent valuation is a new era of economics and has to be implemented to increase the monetary value of public goods such as the environment.
In conclusion, the article assists in revealing the significance of the implementation of contingent valuation as a tool to increase the worth of the environment. The author was able to persuade me that this policy is essential by providing convincing arguments and counterarguments about this matter in a logical manner. The primary implications of the findings involve the generation of the environmental values of the society by the government.
References
Baez, Andrea, and Luis Herrero. “Using Contingent Valuation and Cost-Benefit Analysis to Design a Policy for Restoring Cultural Heritage.” Journal of Cultural Heritage 13.3 (2012): 235. Print.
Dominquez-Torreiro, Marcos, and Mario Solino. “Dealing with Uncertainty in Public Preferences for Rural Development Policies: A Contingent Valuation Survey.” Regional Studies 49.4 (2013): 1-13. Print.
Haefeli, Mathias, Achim Elfering, Emma McIntosh, Alastair Gray, Atul Sukthankar and Norbert Boos. “A Cost-Benefit Analysis Using Contingent Valuation Techniques: A Feasibility Study in Spinal Surgery.” Value in Health 11.4 (2008): 575-588. Print.
Hanemann, Michael. “Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8.4 (1994): 19-43. Print.
Holmes, Thomas, John Bergstrom, John Huskzar, Susan Kask and Fritz Orr. “Contingent Valuation, Net Marginal Benefits, and the Scale of Riparian Ecosystem Restoration.” Ecological Economics 49.1 (2004): 19-30. Print.
Simons, Robert, and Kimberly Winson-Geideman. “Determining Market Perceptions on Contamination of Residential Property Buyers Using Contingent Valuation.” The Journal of Real Estate Research 27.2 (2004): 193. Print.
Veisten, Knut. “Contingent Valuation Controversies: Philosophic Debates about Economic Theory.” The Journal of Socio-Economics 36.2 (2007): 204-232. Print.