'Amenity' or 'eyesore'? Negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers

A frequent scenario in public decision-making is that of choosing between a number of proposed changes from the status quo. In such a case, stated preference surveys, such as the contingent valuation method, are often undertaken to assess the size of the benefits associated with each proposed change. For certain undesirable options, respondents may prefer the status quo; however, it may not be credible to directly elicit negative willingness to pay or willingness to accept to endure the change. This study, using contingent valuation, outlines an indirect means of measuring negative willingness to pay - for the problem of visual disamenity arising from alternative electricity transmission tower designs - based on the elicitation of indicators of how inconvenienced respondents would feel if a less preferred option were to replace the status quo; that is, the time and cost respondents were prepared to commit to opposing the change. The results show that taking account of negative willingness to pay matters and this significantly changes value estimates for some of the least liked options.