Abstract
Environmental benefits are often assessed using responses to hypothetical surveys. These surveys are increasingly elaborate, and have become controversial with their use in litigation over the damages arising from environmental injury. One study concluded with a 'conservative' estimate of $2.8 billion in damages arising from the 1989 oil spill of the Exxon Valdez. Another assessed damages of A$647 million from proposed mining activity in the Kakadu Conservation Zone in Australia. Here we review the way in which the responses to these surveys were interpreted, and make a number of suggestions which may simplify the task of interpretation.