Assessing community preferences for development projects: Are willingness-to-pay studies robust to mode effects?

World Development

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 655-672

  Davis, Jennifer ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

CIS Eastern Europe; Contingent valuation; Demand assessment; Ukraine; Water supply; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; WATER ECONOMICS; WATER SUPPLY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EASTERN EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; ODESSA [UKRAINE]; UKRAINE;

EID: 1842630297     PISSN: 0305750X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.09.007     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Fu, T., Krupnick, A., Lui, J., Shaw, D., - Harrington, W. (1995). Valuing health effects of air pollution in developing countries: the case of Taiwan. Discussion Paper #95-01. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future
2. Altaf M. Whittington D. Jamal H. Smith V. Rethinking rural water supply policy in the Punjab, Pakistan Water Resources Research 29 7 1993 1943-1954
3. Blamey R.K. Bennett J.W. Morrison M.D. Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys Land Economics 75 1 1999 126-141
4. Bollen K. Structural equations with latent variables 1989 Wiley - Sons New York
5. Boyle K. Desvousges W. Johnson F. Dunford R. Hudson S. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent-valuation studies Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 1 1994 64-83
6. Boyle K. Walsh M. Bishop R. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25 1 1993 80-99
7. Davis, J. (1998). Assessing community preferences for development project outputs: Does mode matter? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
8. Davis J. Whittington D. "Participatory" research techniques for development projects: a comparison of the contingent valuation and community dialogue methods Economic Development and Cultural Change 47 1 1998 73
9. Davis, J., - Whittington, D. (2004). Challenges for water sector reform in transition economies. Water Policy. In press
10. De Maio T. Social desirability and survey measurement: a review Turner C. Martin E. Surveying subjective phenomena Vol. 2 1984 Russell-Sage New York
11. Ethier R.G. Poe G.L. Shulze W.D. Clark J. A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs Land Economics 76 1 2000 54-67
12. Griffin C. Briscoe J. Bhatia R. Contingent valuation and actual behaviour: predicting connections to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India World Bank Economic Review 9 3 1995 373-395
13. Groves R. Survey costs and survey errors 1989 Wiley - Sons New York
14. Hippler, H., Schwarz, N., - Hoelle-Neumann, E. (1990). Response order effects and dichotomous choice questions: the impact of administration mode. Unpublished paper presented to the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lancaster, PA
15. Janis I.L. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes 1982 Houghton Mifflin Boston
16. Jick T. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action Maanen J. Qualitative methodology 1983 Sage Publications London
17. Jöreskog, K., - Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8.14: Software and user's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International
18. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 1 1995 114-125
19. Katosh J. Traugott M. The consequences of validated and self-reported voting measures Public Opinion Quarterly 45 4 1981 519
20. Kwak S. Yoo S. Kim T. A constructive approach to air-quality valuation in Korea Ecological Economics 38 3 2001 327-344
21. Leggett C. Kleckner N. Boyle K. Duffield J. Mitchell R. Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person surveys Land Economics 2003
22. Lindberg K. Johnson R. Berrens R. Contingent valuation of rural tourism development with tests of scope and mode stability Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22 1997 44-60
23. Loomis J. King M. Comparison of mail and telephone-mail contingent valuation surveys Journal of Environmental Management 41 1994 309-324
24. Mannesto G. Loomis J. Evaluation of mail and in-person contingent value surveys: results of a study of recreational boaters Journal of Environmental Management 32 1991 177-190
25. Mitchell, R., - Carson, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future
26. Schaeffer N. Evaluating race-of-interviewer effects in a national survey Sociological Methods and Research 8 4 1980 400
27. Schuman H. Presser S. Questions and answers in attitude surveys 1981 Academic Press New York
28. Sherif M. The psychology of social norms 1966 Harper New York
29. Whittaker D. Vaske J. Donnelly M. DeRuiter D. Mail versus telephone surveys: potential biases in expenditure and willingness-to-pay data Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 15 3 1998 15-30
30. Whittington D. Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries World Development 26 1 1998 21-30
31. Whittington, D., - Davis, J. (1994). Systematic client consultation: a review of participatory project assessment techniques. Unpublished report to the World Bank East Africa Division
32. Whittington D. Smith V.K. Okorafor A. Okore A. Liu J.L. McPhail A. Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 3 1992 205-225
33. World Bank Operations Policy Department (1994). The World Bank and participation. Washington, DC: The World Bank