The book review by Raymond Price discusses the work of Robert Cameron Mitchell and Richard T. Carson on the contingent valuation method (CVM) for valuing public goods. The authors provide a comprehensive review of empirical work and a well-organized description of the differences between direct and indirect methods, as well as between observed market behavior and hypothetical markets. They advocate for a property rights approach combined with a referendum format and open-ended elicitation for valuing public goods with continuous expenditures. This approach aims to measure Hicksian compensating variation and reduce hypothetical bias. The review also highlights the authors' recommendation to use open-ended questions to avoid starting point bias, which is a common source of systematic errors in CVM data. However, the review notes some criticisms, including the need for clearer definitions and more detailed discussions on referendum survey design, as well as the controversial nature of their suggestion that starting point bias is the primary source of systematic errors. The impact of the book may depend on whether these views are supported by future theoretical and empirical research.The book review by Raymond Price discusses the work of Robert Cameron Mitchell and Richard T. Carson on the contingent valuation method (CVM) for valuing public goods. The authors provide a comprehensive review of empirical work and a well-organized description of the differences between direct and indirect methods, as well as between observed market behavior and hypothetical markets. They advocate for a property rights approach combined with a referendum format and open-ended elicitation for valuing public goods with continuous expenditures. This approach aims to measure Hicksian compensating variation and reduce hypothetical bias. The review also highlights the authors' recommendation to use open-ended questions to avoid starting point bias, which is a common source of systematic errors in CVM data. However, the review notes some criticisms, including the need for clearer definitions and more detailed discussions on referendum survey design, as well as the controversial nature of their suggestion that starting point bias is the primary source of systematic errors. The impact of the book may depend on whether these views are supported by future theoretical and empirical research.