Contingent valuation with an open-ended follow-up question: A test of scope effects

Health Economics

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 637-639

  Kartman, Bernt ^a,d   Stålhammar, Nils Olov ^b   Johannesson, Magnus ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b Astro Hassle AB   (Sweden)

^c STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

^d ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

Author keywords

CBA; Contingent valuation; Scope effects; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH ECONOMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ESOPHAGITIS, PEPTIC; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; SWEDEN;

EID: 0031434642     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199711)6:6<637::AID-HEC314>3.0.CO;2-V     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Green, D., Jacowitz, K., Kahneman, D. and McFadden, D. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics In press.
2. Kartman, B., Stålhammar, N.-O. and Johannesson, M. Valuation of health changes with the contingent valuation method: a test of scope and question order effects. Health Economics 1996; 5: 531-541.
3. Greene, W. H. Econometric analysis 2nd edition. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993; 58: 4601-4614.
5. Brown, T. C., Champ, P. A., Bishop, R. C. and McCollum, D. W. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics 1996; 72: 152-166.