What level of information enables the public to act like experts when evaluating ecological goods?

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 463-475

  Kenyon, Wendy ^a   Edwards Jones, Gareth ^b  

^a SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^b BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION;

EID: 0031689836     PISSN: 09640568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09640569811542     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Ajzen, I., Brown, T.C. & Rosenthal, L.H. (1996) Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation, Journal of Environmental Economics & Management, 30, pp. 43-57.
2. Bowers, J.K. (1997) Sustainability and Environmental Economics: An Alternative Text (Harlow, Longman).
3. Boyle, K.J., Welsh, M.P., Bishop, R.C. & Baumgartner, R.M. (1995) Validating contingent valuation with surveys of experts. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, October, pp. 247-253.
4. Edwards-Jones, G., Edwards-Jones, E.S. & Mitchell, K. (1995) A comparison of contingent valuation methodology and ecological assessment as a technique for incorporating ecological goods into land use decisions, Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 38, pp. 215-230.
5. Federal Register (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, 58(10), pp. 4601-4614, (Washington, DC, US Government).
6. Foster, V., Bateman, I.J. & Harley, D. (1997) Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 48, pp. 123-137.
7. Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. (1993) Valuing environmental resources: a construction approach, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, pp. 177-197.
8. Hanley, N. & Munro, A. (1993) Design bias in contingent valuation studies: the impact of information, Discussion Paper in Economics 91/13, (University of Stirling, Department of Economics).
9. Heywood V.H. (1995) Global Biodiversity Assessment (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
10. Hoevenagel, R. & van der Linden, J.W. (1993) Effects of different descriptions of the ecological good on willingness to pay values, Ecological Economics, 7, pp. 223-238.
11. Hutchinson, W.G., Chilton, S.M. & Davis, J. (1995) Measuring non-use value of environmental goods using the contingent valuation method: problems of information and cognition and the application of cognition questionnaire design methods, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46, pp. 97-112
12. Kemp, M.A. & Maxwell, C. (1993) Budget context for CV estimates, in: J.A. Hausman (Ed.) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment (Amsterdam, North Holland).
13. Kuitunen, M. & Tormala, T. (1994) Willingness of students to favour the protection of endangered species in a trade-off conflict in Finland, Journal of Environmental Management, 42, pp. 111-118.
14. Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T. (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (Washington, DC, Resources for the Future).
15. Southwood, T.R.E. (1989) Ecological Methods (Chapman & Hall, London).
16. Spash, C.L. & Hanley, N. (1995) Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation, Ecological Economics, 12, pp. 191-208.
17. Spellerberg, I.F. (1994) Evaluation and Assessment for Conservation (London, Chapman & Hall).
18. Whitehead, J.C., Blomquist G.C., Hoban, T.J. & Clifford, W.B. (1995) Assessing the validity and reliability of contingent values: a comparison of on-site users, off-site users, and non-users, Journal of Environmental Economics & Management, 29, pp. 238-251.