Contingent valuation (CV) is a widely used non-market valuation technique that estimates the total value of environmental goods, including passive use value. Despite its popularity, CV is the subject of debate regarding its reliability and the validity of passive use value in economic policy analysis. This paper addresses key issues in the CV debate, focusing on the validity of passive use value and the challenges in CV implementation. It argues that many of the alleged problems with CV can be resolved through careful study design and implementation. The paper also concludes that claims that empirical CV findings are theoretically inconsistent are not generally supported by the literature. The debate over CV has clarified several key issues related to non-market valuation and can provide useful guidance for CV practitioners and users of CV results. CV allows researchers to assess total value, including passive use value, which is the value of a good or service that is not directly consumed but is still beneficial. Passive use value can be significant and has not always been measured. Including passive use value in natural resource damage assessments can influence the outcome of environmental policy decisions. Although CV is the most frequently used non-market valuation technique for environmental goods, there is ongoing debate about its reliability and the suitability of passive use values in economic policy analysis. The paper discusses welfare economic issues related to CV and passive use, the design and implementation of CV surveys, empirical results from CV studies, strategic behavior in CV elicitation, and the validity and reliability of CV estimates. It concludes that CV is a useful tool for benefit-cost analysis and that many of the criticisms of CV can be addressed through careful study design and implementation. The paper provides a concise overview of the most commonly alleged weaknesses of CV and passive use value and offers counter-arguments to these criticisms.Contingent valuation (CV) is a widely used non-market valuation technique that estimates the total value of environmental goods, including passive use value. Despite its popularity, CV is the subject of debate regarding its reliability and the validity of passive use value in economic policy analysis. This paper addresses key issues in the CV debate, focusing on the validity of passive use value and the challenges in CV implementation. It argues that many of the alleged problems with CV can be resolved through careful study design and implementation. The paper also concludes that claims that empirical CV findings are theoretically inconsistent are not generally supported by the literature. The debate over CV has clarified several key issues related to non-market valuation and can provide useful guidance for CV practitioners and users of CV results. CV allows researchers to assess total value, including passive use value, which is the value of a good or service that is not directly consumed but is still beneficial. Passive use value can be significant and has not always been measured. Including passive use value in natural resource damage assessments can influence the outcome of environmental policy decisions. Although CV is the most frequently used non-market valuation technique for environmental goods, there is ongoing debate about its reliability and the suitability of passive use values in economic policy analysis. The paper discusses welfare economic issues related to CV and passive use, the design and implementation of CV surveys, empirical results from CV studies, strategic behavior in CV elicitation, and the validity and reliability of CV estimates. It concludes that CV is a useful tool for benefit-cost analysis and that many of the criticisms of CV can be addressed through careful study design and implementation. The paper provides a concise overview of the most commonly alleged weaknesses of CV and passive use value and offers counter-arguments to these criticisms.