Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means you have safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

  • Environmental Topics
  • Laws & Regulations
  • Report a Violation
  • About EPA
Contact Us

Grantee Research Project Results

Exploring the Adequacy of Willingness to Pay in Wilderness Values and Valuation

EPA Grant Number: U915189
Title: Exploring the Adequacy of Willingness to Pay in Wilderness Values and Valuation
Investigators: Trainor, Sarah F.
Institution: University of California - Berkeley
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: January 1, 1997 through January 1, 1999
Project Amount: $68,000
RFA: STAR Graduate Fellowships (1997) RFA Text |  Recipients Lists
Research Category: Fellowship - Economics , Academic Fellowships , Environmental Justice

Objective:

The objective of this research project is to understand how members of the public conceive of their values for environmental protection in its extreme form, as wilderness preservation. Scholars from backgrounds in philosophy, economics, and psychology have described and begun to investigate the complexity of values and their role in environmental policy. This study examines the relationship between values as captured by the methods of economists working in the utilitarian tradition and multiple wilderness values. Specifically, we seek to understand if, in the mind of the wilderness user, spiritual and intrinsic values are adequately reflected in willingness-to-pay statements.

Approach:

Using a multidisciplinary approach, we investigated the relationship between descriptions of spiritual and intrinsic wilderness values and statements of willingness to pay as expressed in contingent valuation scenarios and as fees for wilderness use. Data were collected via standardized, semistructured interviews that were designed to learn how people think of these three forms of wilderness value (willingness to pay, spiritual, and intrinsic) and the relationships between them. Interviews had three components: (1) a discussion of economic values including structured contingent valuation questions and open-ended willingness-to-pay fees; (2) a discussion of spiritual and intrinsic values; and (3) a discussion of the relationship between these economic and noneconomic values. Interview protocol alternated components 1 and 2. Demographic data and responses to willingness-to-pay questions were analyzed. Narrative responses were coded in three iterations, and emergent themes were identified. The values and opinions expressed in the semistructured interviews support the existence of a plurality of wilderness values, and suggest that neither willingness to pay for use fees nor willingness to pay in a contingent valuation context adequately represent a complete expression of wilderness value. Some values that may be important for consideration in policy and land management decision making cannot be measured in a single aggregate metric.

Supplemental Keywords:

fellowship, wilderness values, wilderness user/use, land management policy, land management decision making, wilderness preservation, willingness to pay, spiritual wilderness values, intrinsic wilderness values., RFA, Scientific Discipline, POLLUTION PREVENTION, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Economics & Decision Making, Urban and Regional Planning, decision-making, sustainable development, Social Science, Ecology and Ecosystems, Resources Management, public values, socioeconomics, valuing environmental quality, willingness to pay, ecosystem valuation, policy making, land management fees, environmental decision making, environmental values, public policy, wilderness values, land use, valuation, contingent valuation, conservation, environmental policy, decision making

Progress and Final Reports:

  • 1997
  • Final
  • Top of Page

    The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.

    Site Navigation

    • Grantee Research Project Results Home
    • Grantee Research Project Results Basic Search
    • Grantee Research Project Results Advanced Search
    • Grantee Research Project Results Fielded Search
    • Publication search
    • EPA Regional Search

    Related Information

    • Search Help
    • About our data collection
    • Research Grants
    • P3: Student Design Competition
    • Research Fellowships
    • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
    Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
    Last updated April 28, 2023
    United States Environmental Protection Agency

    Discover.

    • Accessibility
    • Budget & Performance
    • Contracting
    • EPA www Web Snapshot
    • Grants
    • No FEAR Act Data
    • Plain Writing
    • Privacy
    • Privacy and Security Notice

    Connect.

    • Data.gov
    • Inspector General
    • Jobs
    • Newsroom
    • Open Government
    • Regulations.gov
    • Subscribe
    • USA.gov
    • White House

    Ask.

    • Contact EPA
    • EPA Disclaimers
    • Hotlines
    • FOIA Requests
    • Frequent Questions

    Follow.