An experimental test of response consistency in contingent valuation

Ecological Economics

Volumn 47, Issue 2-3, 2003, Pages 167-182

  Camacho Cuena, Eva ^a   García Gallego, Aurora ^a   Georgantzís, Nikolaos ^a   Sabater Grande, Gerardo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT JAUME I   (Spain)

Author keywords

Ecological furniture design; Environmental friendliness; Experimental economics; Hypothetical experimental preferences

Indexed keywords

CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; MANUFACTURING; TESTING METHOD; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 0346996992     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00192-7     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Asher, H., 1998. Polling the Public. Congressional Quaterly Press Ed.
2. Balistreri, E., McClelland, G., Poe, G., Schulze, W., 2001. Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environmental and Resource Economics 18, 275-292.
3. Blackburn, M., Harrison, G.W., Rutström, E.E., 1994. Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 1084-1088.
4. Carson, R.T., 2000. Contingent valuation: a user's guide. Environmental Science and Technology 34, 1413-1418.
5. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M., Wright, J.L., 1996. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for the quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72, 80-99.
6. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Meade, N.F., 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19, 173-210.
7. Champ, P.A., Bishop, R., Brown, T., McCollum, D., 1997. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 151-162.
8. Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., Rutström, E.E., 1995. Home-ground values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible. American Economic Review 85, 260-266.
9. Cummings, R.G., Elliot, S., Harrison, G.W., Murphy, J., 1997. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible. Journal of Political Economy 105, 609-621.
10. Harrison, G.W., Harstad, R.M., Rutström, E.E., 1995. Experimental methods and elicitation of the values. Economic Working Paper B-95-11, Division of Research, College Business Administration, University of Sourth Carolina.
11. Neill, H.R., Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., Harrison, G.W., McGuckin, T., 1994. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics 70, 145-154.
12. Nyborg, K., 2000. Homo economicus and homo politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 42, 305-322.
13. Polasky, S., Gainutdinova, O., Kerkvliet, J., 1996. Comparing CV responses with voting behaviour: open space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon. In: Herriges, J. (Ed.), Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resources Planning. Western Regional Research Publication W-133, Ninth International Report, 105-129.
14. Shogren, J.F., Durden, G.C., 1991. The first 15 years: contributors and contributions of the journal of environmental economics and management: 1974-1988. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20, 205-209.
15. Smith, V.K., 2000. JEEM and non-market valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39, 351-374.