From the inbox:
Measuring nonuse damages using contingent valuation: An experimental evaluation of accuracy (2nd edition)
By William H. Desvousges, F. Reed Johnson, Richard W. Dunford, Kevin J. Boyle, Sarah P. Hudson, and K. Nicole Wilson
This second edition of Measuring Nonuse Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy, with new foreword and preface by Kevin Boyle and Bill Desvousges, is a reprint of the original 1992 monograph. The monograph reports the results of two natural-resource damage studies arising from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. These studies first documented the possibility that stated nonuse values for natural resources might not vary with the scope of the damage. Despite advances in methods and statistics, these studies continue to be of interest to scholars and policy makers.
Download the PDF file
Most of this is in the journals but the foreword from Boyle, who places the RTI study in the context of the current literature, and preface from Desvousges, who tells the story of how they came to work for Exxon, are fascinating.
The timing of the re-release is obvious. From Boyle:
Fast forward a little more than 21 years from the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the U.S. is facing an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that is much larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill. There is no doubt that there will be a natural resource damage assessment, and contingent valuation or an alternative stated-preference method is again likely to play an important role in the monetary measurement of injuries. There has been considerable research on the validity of contingent valuation, and more generally stated-preference valuation methods, in the intervening years.