Hausman (2012) "selectively" reviews the CVM literature and fails to find progress over the 18 years since Diamond and Hausman (1994) argued that unquantified benefits and costs are preferred to benefits and costs quantified by CVM for policy analysis. In these comments, we provide counter-arguments to the claims made by Hausman. We provide these counterarguments not with the intent to convince the reader that the debate over contingent valuation is settled but rather to urge the community of economists to recognize that the intellectual debate over contingent valuation is still ongoing and that plenty of work remains to be done. We review the literature and argue that (1) hypothetical bias raises important research questions about the incentives guiding survey responses and preference revelation in both real and hypothetical settings that contingent valuation can help answer, (2) the WTP-WTA gap debate is far from settled and the debate raises important research questions about the future design and use of benefit cost analyses of which contingent valuation will undoubtedly be a part, and (3) CVM studies do, in fact, tend to pass a scope test and there is little support for the assertion that an adding up test is the definitive test of CVM validity.

A nationwide survey was conducted to estimate welfare associated with a proposed large-scale wetland restoration project in coastal Louisiana. Both binary-and multinomial-choice survey instruments were administered via Knowledge Networks, with the latter used to estimate willingness to pay for increments in three ecosystem services: wildlife habitat provision, storm surge protection, and fisheries productivity. Results indicate that confidence in government agencies, political leanings, and "green" lifestyle choices were significant explanatory factors. All three ecosystem services significantly affected project support, with increased fisheries productivity having the largest marginal effect, followed by improved storm surge protection, and increased wildlife habitat. Willingness to pay (WTP), in the form of a one-time tax, is

A substantial source of food waste occurs when consumers and sellers dispose of expired food despite it being safe to eat. We conduct an incentive-compatible, non-hypothetical laboratory choice experiment in which 150 participants choose between food products of varying perishability level at various dates before or after their best-before dates. In one treatment, participants received information about the interpretation of food date labels. In another they received this information plus additional information on food waste due to date label confusion and its environmental impacts. We find that clarifying the meaning of date labels is insufficient to change preferences for food past its best-before date, but when a link between date labels, food waste, and its environmental impacts is made, participants’ willingness-to-pay for expired food increases, particularly for expired frozen or recently expired semi-perishable products. Our findings have implications for food waste reduction efforts because increasing the value of expired food increases the opportunity cost of wasting expired but consumable food.

No abstract

To capitalize on potential opportunities presented by growing consumer demand for locally grown foods, farmers need insight into significant motivations and behavioral characteristics of consumers in their region. This paper aims to evaluate the characteristics of Southeastern urban consumers who purchased food directly from producers. Novel study findings include the impact of disease incidences that occurred in respondent and related family members, a more accurate understanding of US agriculture, relatively higher levels of concern about US food safety, and greater physical activity levels, which are significant motivators of increased likelihood to purchase direct from producers.