Existence Value vs Contingent Valuation
Existence Value and Contingent Valuation are two Environmental Economics concepts in AP Economics that students often mix up. Existence value is what people are willing to pay just to know something exists, such as a species or wilderness, even if they never use or see it. Contingent valuation is a survey method that values a nonmarket good by asking people what they would pay for it in a described hypothetical situation. Here is how they compare side by side.
Economists split the total value of an environmental asset into use value, which requires actually visiting, harvesting or otherwise consuming it, and non-use value, which does not. Existence value is the main piece of non-use value: people give money to protect deep ocean habitats and remote species they will never encounter, which is evidence that the willingness to pay is real. A close cousin is bequest value, the willingness to pay so that future generations still have the asset, and both differ from option value, which is payment to keep open the possibility that you yourself might use it later. Because no purchase reveals existence value, it has to be estimated from surveys rather than observed behavior.
Clean air, an unspoiled river and a surviving species carry no price tag, so analysts either infer values from related behavior (revealed preference, such as travel costs or house prices) or ask people directly (stated preference). Contingent valuation is the main stated preference tool, and the value is contingent on the hypothetical market the survey describes: a specific improvement, a specific way of paying for it, and usually a yes or no vote on a stated dollar amount, which mimics a real referendum. It is the only family of methods that can pick up non-use values such as existence value, since those leave no trace in behavior. The cost is credibility, because no money actually changes hands and answers can drift above what people would really pay.
Existence Value vs Contingent Valuation: The Value and the Way You Measure It
| Existence Value | Contingent Valuation | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A category of value that people hold | A survey method for putting a number on value |
| Question it answers | Why would anyone pay for something they will never use | How much would people pay for it |
| Where the number comes from | Nowhere, until somebody measures it | Answers given to a described hypothetical choice |
| Main weakness | Impossible to observe directly, so easy to dispute | Stated willingness to pay can differ from real behavior |
| The alternative to it | Use value, which shows up in travel and market spending | Revealed-preference methods such as travel cost or house prices |
| Where you meet it | Arguments about protecting a species or a wilderness | Damage assessments and cost-benefit studies |
The value is real even when the market records nothing
Existence value is what someone will give up simply to know that a thing continues to exist, with no plan to visit, use or see it. Nothing about that shows up in a market, because no transaction ever takes place, so a cost-benefit study that counts only tickets and travel spending records it as zero. Contingent valuation is the attempt to fill that hole by asking. Suppose an illustrative survey finds that households would pay an average of $8 a year to protect a remote wilderness area, and 4 million households are covered. The stated benefit is $32 million a year against a protection cost of $20 million, so the case passes by $12 million. Now change one number. If the true average is $5 rather than $8, the benefit is exactly $20 million and the case is a tie, and at $4 it is $16 million and protection fails the test. The entire decision rests on a survey mean that nobody can check against behavior, which is why the method is fought over so hard. The value itself has the character of a /glossary/public-good, since your knowing the wilderness survives does not reduce my knowing it too.
The survey is doing a hard job, and it shows
Four problems come up in every critique. Hypothetical bias comes first: no money actually changes hands, so answers are freer than a real payment would be. Scope insensitivity is the sharpest of them, because respondents often name similar amounts for protecting one lake and for protecting a whole region, which should not happen if the answers track the quantity being bought. Warm glow is the third, where a respondent is really paying for the feeling of supporting a good cause rather than valuing this particular resource. Protest answers are the fourth, from people who refuse to price the thing at all or who state a figure to register an objection. Good practice tries to design these out by asking a simple yes or no to a stated price, in the style of a referendum, and by reminding respondents of their budget and of the other causes competing for it. Estimates are also cross-checked against revealed-preference methods wherever any market trace exists. The honest conclusion for an exam answer is that a contingent valuation figure is a range with a method attached, not a measurement, and the related theory is developed at /micro/public-goods-externalities.
Frequently asked questions
What is existence value in economics?
Existence value is the amount people are willing to pay purely to know that something continues to exist, even if they will never use, visit or see it. It is a non-use value, which means no market transaction ever reveals it and it has to be estimated by survey if it is to count at all.
How does contingent valuation work?
A survey describes a specific environmental change in concrete terms and asks respondents what they would pay to secure it or to avoid it, often as a yes or no answer to a single stated price. The responses are averaged and multiplied across the relevant population to give a total value for use in a cost-benefit study.
Why do economists distrust contingent valuation?
Because people are answering a question about money they will not actually hand over, so the stated amounts can drift away from what they would really pay. The most damaging evidence is that stated amounts often barely change when the amount of the resource being protected changes, which suggests respondents are pricing the idea rather than the quantity.
Get AP Econ exam tips in your inbox
Occasional emails with study tips, new interactive graphs, and exam-season reminders. Free, no spam.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Read our privacy policy.
Keep track of what you have studied
A free EconLearn account adds progress tracking, your quiz history, and achievements. Studying here is free either way, and there is nothing to pay for as a student.
Create a free accountAlready have one? Sign in
Last updated