Peter Lucas responds to Laura Westra’s article “The Disvalue of ‘Contingent Valuation’ and the Problem of the ‘Expectation Gap’ ” (Environmental Values 9, no. 2 (2000): 153–71).

Clive L. Spash presents a critical review of some recent research by social psychologists in the US attempting to explain stated behaviour in contingent valuation.

In their article, John O’Neill and Clive L. Splash analyse how local processes of envrionmental decision-making can enter into good policy-making processes.

Jonathan Aldred tests aspects of the claim that ocussing
cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is limited in scope, as some things cannot be meaningfully priced. He focuses on problems of incomparability and incommensurability, and compares CBA to rough equality.