Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 145-159

  Roe, B ^a   Boyle, Kevin J ^b   Teisl, Mario F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PANACEA;

EID: 0030239191     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0037     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. 1. W. Adamowicz, J. Fletcher, and T. Graham-Tomasi, Functional form and the statistical properties of welfare measures, Amer. J. Agr. Econom. 71, 414-421 (1989).
2. 2. W. Adamowicz, J. Louviere, and M. Williams, Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, J. Environ. Econom. Management 26, 271-292 (1994).
3. 3. J. L. Anderson and S. U. Bettencourt, A conjoint approach to model product preferences: The New England market for fresh and frozen salmon, Marine Res. Econom. 8, 31-49 (1993).
4. 4. A. P. Barten, Consumer allocation models: Choice of functional form, Empirical Econom. 18, 129-158 (1993).
5. 5. K. J. Boyle, Dichotomous-choice, contingent-valuation questions: Functional form is important, N. E. J. Agr. Res. Econom. 19, 125-131 (1990).
6. 6. K. J. Boyle and M. Teisl, "Angler Evaluations of Potential Management Programs for Atlantic Salmon on the Penobscot River," Staff Paper ARE 438, Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Univ. of Maine (1992).
7. 7. K. J. Boyle, M. Teisl, and S. D. Reiling, "Benefit-Cost Analyses of Atlantic Salmon Restoration on the Penobscot River," Report to Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., Bangor, ME, 1992.
8. 8. E. Carmines and R. Zeller, "Reliability and Validity Assessment," Sage, London (1979).
9. 9. J. C. Cooper, A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measures from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys, Land Econom. 70, 111-122 (1994).
10. 10. D. A. Dillman, "Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method," Wiley, New York (1978).
11. 11. A. M. Freeman, Factorial survey methods and willingness to pay for housing characteristics: A comment, J. Environ. Econom. Management 20, 92-96 (1991).
12. 12. P. E. Green and V. Srinivasan, Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice, J. Marketing 54, 3-19 (1990).
13. 13. W. M. Hanemann, Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, Amer. J. Agr. Econom. 66, 322-341 (1984).
14. 14. T. J. Lareau and D. A. Rae, Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: An application of contingent ranking technique, Southern Econom. J. 728-742 (1986).
15. 15. R. D. Luce and J. W. Tukey, Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement, J. Math. Psych. 1, 1-27 (1964).
16. 16. J. Mackenzie, A comparison of contingent preference models, Amer. J. Agr. Econom. 75, 593-603 (1993).
17. 17. K. E. McConnell, Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econom. Management 18, 19-34 (1990).
18. 18. W. Mendenhall, D.D. Wackerly, and R. L. Scheaffer, "Mathematical Statistics with Applications," 4th ed., PWS-Kent, Boston (1990).
19. 19. R. C. Mitchell and R. T. Carson, "Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method," Resources for the Future, Washington, DC (1989).
20. 20. E. R. Morey, Confuser surplus, Amer. Econon. Rev. 74, 163-173 (1984).
21. 21. V. K. Smith, Taking stock of progress with travel cost recreation demand methods: Theory and implementation, Marine Res. Econom. 6, 279-310 (1989).