Must contingent valuation surveys cost so much?

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 79-95

  Harrison, Glenn W ^a   Lesley, James C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030197966     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0033     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. K. Arrow, R. Solow, R. Portney, E. E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman, Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Fed. Regist. 58(10), 4602-4614 (1993).
2. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, "Valuing Conservation in the Kakadu Conservation Zone," Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1991).
3. M. Blackburn, G. W. Harrison, and E. E. Rutström, Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys, Amer. J. Agricult. Econom. 76(5), 1084-1088 (1994).
4. T. A. Cameron, A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression, J. Environ. Econom. Management 15, 355-379 (1988).
5. T. A. Cameron, Cameron's censored logistic regression model: Reply, J. Environ. Econom. Management 20, 303-304 (1991).
6. R. T. Carson, Constructed markets, in "Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality" (J. B. Braden and C. K. Kolstad, Eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam (1991a).
7. R. T. Carson, The RAC Kakadu Conservation Zone contingent valuation study: Remarks on the Brunton, Stone, and Tasman Institute critiques, in "Commentaries on the Resource Assessment Commission's Contingent Valuation Survey of the Kakadu Conservation Zone" (Resource Assessment Commission, Eds.), Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra (1991b).
8. R. T. Carson, Memo regarding the ABARE submission, in "Commentaries on the Resource Assessment Commission's Contingent Valuation Survey of the Kakadu Conservation Zone" (Resource Assessment Commission, Eds.), Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra (1991c).
9. R. T. Carson, "Kakadu Conservation Zone," in "Natural Resource Damages: Law and Economics" (K. M. Ward and J. W. Duffield, Eds.), Wiley, New York (1992).
10. R. T. Carson, R. C. Mitchell, W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, S. Presser, and P. A. Ruud, "Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Attorney General of the State of Alaska, Anchorage (1992).
11. R. G. Cummings, and G. W. Harrison, Was the Ohio court well informed in their assessment of the accuracy of the contingent valuation method? Natur. Resources J. 34(1), 1-36 (1994).
12. R. G. Cummings, G. W. Harrison, and E. E. Rutström, Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible? Amer. Econom. Rev. 85(1), 260-266 (1995).
13. M. G. Dalecki, J. C. Whitehead, and G. C. Blomquist, Sample nonresponse bias and aggregate benefits in contingent valuation: An examination of early, late, and non-respondents, J. Environ. Management 38, 133-143 (1993).
14. S. F. Edwards, and G. D. Anderson, Overlooked biases in contingent value surveys: Some considerations, Land Econom. 63(2), 168-178 (1987).
15. W. H. Greene, "Econometric Analysis," MacMillan, New York (1990).
16. W. H. Greene, "LIMDEP Version 6.0: User's Manual and Reference Guide," Econometric Software, Bellport, NY (1992).
17. W. M. Hanemann, "Review of 'A Contingent Valuation Survey of the Kakadu Conservation Zone,'" in "A Contingent Valuation Survey of the Kakadu Conservation Zone" (D. Imber, G. Stevenson, and L. Wilks, Eds.), Government Publishing Service for the Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra (1991).
18. G. H. Harrison, and B. Kriström, "On the interpretation of responses to contingent valuation surveys," in "Current Issues in Environmental Economics" (P. O. Johansson, B. Kriström, and K. G. Mäler, Eds.), University Press, Manchester (1995).
19. D. Imber, G. Stevenson, and L. Wilks, "A Contingent Valuation Survey of the Kakadu Conservation Zone," Australian Government Publishing Service for the Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra (1991).
20. J. Lancaster, Value of intangible losses from Exxon Valdez spill put at $3 billion, The Washington Post March 20, A4 (1991).
21. J. B. Loomis, Expanding contingent value sample estimates to aggregate benefit estimates: Current practices and proposed solutions, Land Econom. 63(4), 396-402 (1987).
22. R. C. Mitchell, and R. T. Carson, "Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method," Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore (1989).
23. P. Passell, Polls may help government decide the worth of nature, The New York Times September 6, 1, 20 (1993).
24. B. Segersted, and H. Nyquist, On the conditioning problem in generalized linear models, J. Appl. Statist. 19(4), 513-526 (1992).
25. J. C. Whitehead, P. A. Groothuis, and G. C. Blomquist, Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Analysis of a combination phone mail survey, Econom. Lett. 41(2), 215-220 (1993).