'Amenity' or 'eyesore'? Negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers

Applied Economics Letters

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 203-208

  Atkinson, Giles ^a   Day, Brett ^b   Mourato, Susana ^c   Palmer, Charles ^d  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DECISION MAKING; LAND USE; PLANNING METHOD; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 1842738653     PISSN: 13504851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13504850410001674803     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Atkinson, G., Day, B., Mourato, S. and Palmer, C. (2002) The impacts of distance and familiarity on preferences for the replacement of electricity transmission towers, London School of Economics and Political Science.
2. Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. and Kerkvliet, J. (1998) A randomized response for dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Resource and Energy Economics, 19, 117-38.
3. Bohara, A. K., Kerkvliet, J. and Berrens, R. P. (2001) Addressing negative willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 173-95.
4. Carson, R. T., Groves, T. and Machina, M. J. (2000) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions, University of California, San Diego.
5. Cesario, F. J. (1976) Value of time in recreation benefit studies, Land Economics, 52, 32-41.
6. Clinch, P. J. and Murphy, A. (2001) Modelling winners and losers in contingent valuation of public goods: appropriate welfare measures and econometric analysis, Economic Journal, 111, 420-43.
7. Lockwood, M., Loomis, J. and DeLacy, T. (1994) The relative unimportance of non-market willingness to pay for timber harvesting, Ecological Economics, 9, 145-52.