Reluctant respondents and contingent valuation surveys

Applied Economics Letters

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 263-266

  Berrens, Robert P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 0034115526     PISSN: 13504851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/135048500351645     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Federal Register, 58, 4601-14.
2. Bishop, R., Champ, P. and Mullarkey, D. (1995) Contingent valuation, in The Handbook of Environmental Economics (Ed.) D. Bromley, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 629-54.
3. Bohara, A., McKee, M., Barrens, R., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C. and Brookshire, D. (1998) Effects of total cost and group-size information on willingness to pay responses: open ended vs. dichotomous choice, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 35, 142-63.
4. Cameron, T. (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15, 355-79.
5. Hanemann, W. H. (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 19-43.
6. Portney, P. (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 3-17.
7. Randall, A. (1998) The NOAA panel report: a new beginning or the end of an era? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79, 1489-94.
8. Schuman, H. (1996) The sensitivity of CV outcomes to CV survey methods, in, The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs (Eds) D. Bjornstad and J. Kahn, Edward Elgar, Brookfield, VT, pp. 75-96.