Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
First Committee Member
Number of Pages
The hedonic price method (HPM) and the contingent valuation method (CVM) are two valuation techniques used to estimate and report benefits of public and private environmental goods. Both methods are used in comparison studies for public goods, but not for private goods. The purpose of this study is to extend the knowledge of economic valuation for a private good by comparing a reported value from a contingent valuation survey with an estimate from the HPM using the application of xeriscape landscaping in residential settings. Market data were collected from 500 residential locations in Clark County, Nevada; of this sample, 250 homes had xeriscape landscaping, and the remaining 250 homes did not. Surveys were mailed to these locations, and a copy of the survey was also made available on the Internet. A total of 49 respondents was obtained. The key findings are that (a) market participants value xeriscape landscaping; (b) survey respondents value xeriscape landscaping; and (c) a benefit estimate for the private environmental good using the HPM is greater than a benefit reported using the CVM, confirming results from past studies of public goods. This study contributes to the literature by exploring the literature gap in welfare measurement when using two methods and making comparisons and helps to further identify the advantages and limitations of the HPM and CVM valuation techniques.
Contingent Valuation; Environmental; Good; Hedonic; Hedonic Price Method; Methods; Price; Private; Valuation; Values; Versus; Xeriscape
Environmental sciences; Landscape architecture; Economics
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
If you are the rightful copyright holder of this dissertation or thesis and wish to have the full text removed from Digital Scholarship@UNLV, please submit a request to email@example.com and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL.
Rollins, Carole Ann, "Comparing values for a private environmental good, xeriscape: Hedonic price method versus contingent valuation method" (2008). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 2797.
IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/