On the gap between payment card and closed-ended CVM-answers

Applied Economics

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 733-742

  Hackl, Franz ^a   Pruckner, Gerald J ^a  

^a JOHANNES KEPLER UNIVERSITY LINZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; METHODOLOGY; NATIONAL PARK; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AUSTRIA;

EID: 0032805551     PISSN: 00036846     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/000368499323940     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bowker, J. M. and Stoll, J. R. (1988) Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70, 372-81.
2. Cameron, T. A. and Huppert, D. D. (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17, 230-46.
3. Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S. and Ruud, P. A. (1992). A contingent valuation study of lost passive use values resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. A Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska.
4. Hanemann, W. M. (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete choice responses, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332-41.
5. Hanemann, W. M. (1994) Contingent valuation and economics. Working paper 697, University of California, Berkeley.
6. Hanemann, W. M. and Kriström, B. (1995) Preference uncertainty, optimal designs and spikes, in P. O. Johansson, B. Kriström and K. G. Maler (eds) Current Issues in Environmental Economics (Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York), pp. 58-77.
7. Hanemann, W. M., Loomis, J. and Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 1255-63.
8. Harrison, G. W. and Kriström, B. (1995) Interpretation of responses in CV surveys, in P. O. Johansson, B. Kriström and K. G. Maler (eds) Current Issues in Environmental Economics (Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York), pp. 35-57.
9. Kealy, M. J. and Turner, R. W. (1993) A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 321-331.
10. Kriström, B. (1993) Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions, Environmental and Resource Economics, 3, 63-71.
11. Kriström, B. (1995) Spike models in contingent valuation: Theory and illustrations. Paper presented at the 1st Toulouse conference on environmental and resource economics.
12. Loomis, J. B. (1987) Expanding contingent value sampling estimates to aggregate benefit estimates: Current particles and proposed solutions, Land Economics, 63, 396-402.
13. Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods, John Hopkins University for Resources for the Future, Baltimore
14. Ready, R. C., Buzby, J. C. and Hu, D. (1996) Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates, Land Economics, 12, 397-411.
15. Walsh, R. G., Johnson, D. M. and McKean, J. R. (1989) Issues in nonmarket valuation and policy application: A retrospective glance, Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 14, 178-88.