I thought the section the NOAA Panel in Portney's "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economist Should Care" was quite interesting. This section discussed how environmentalists insisted NOAA rules parallel those of the Department of Interior. The panel established guidelines which the panel felt future applications of the contingent valuation method should adhere to in order to produce reliable estimates of lost existence values for the purposes of damage assessment or regulation (pg. 9)
NOAA produced seven guidelines that made some proponents of the contingent valuation method unhappy. One issue was the fact in-person interviews would be quite costly but NOAA supported this and the other guidelines as a way to justify large demand awards. The article also mentioned NOAA hoped to elevate the quality of future studies to increase the likelihood that the studies would produce reliable estimates for future policy decisions. (pg. 10)
Did anyone think any of the seven guidelines were unreasonable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment