A pilot test of a new stated preference valuation method: Continuous attribute-based stated choice

Ecological Economics

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 247-255

  Ready, Richard ^a   Fisher, Ann ^a   Guignet, Dennis ^a   Stedman, Richard ^a   Wang, Junchao ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attribute based stated choice; Global climate change; Nonmarket valuation

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC THEORY; GLOBAL CLIMATE; SOFTWARE; SURVEY DESIGN; VALUATION;

EID: 33748099879     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 10 (January 15 1993) 4601-4614
2. Bishop R.C., and Heberlein T.A. Measuring values of extramarket goods: are indirect measures biased?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 5 (1979) 926-930
3. Boyle K.J., Bishop R.C., and Welsh M. Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Economics 61 (1985) 188-194
4. Boyle K.J., MacDonald H.F., Cheng H.T., and McCollum D.W. Bid design and yea saying in single-bounded, dichotomous-choice questions. Land Economics 74 1 (1998) 49-64
5. Carson R., Groves T., and Machina M.J. Incentive and Informational Properties of Preferences Questions (1999) Plenary Address, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo Norway
6. Davis, R.K., 1963. The value of outdoor recreation: An economic study of the Maine woods. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
7. Dubourg W.B., Jones-Lee M.W., and Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and survey design in contingent valuation. Economica 64 (1997) 681-702
8. Foster V., and Mourato S. Testing for consistency in contingent ranking experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (2002) 309-328
9. Greene W.H., and Hensher D.A. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research. Part B: Methodological 37 8 (2003) 681-698
10. Hoehn J.P., and Randall A. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economic Management 14 (1987) 226-247
11. Holmes T.P., and Adamowicz W.L. Attribute-based methods. In: Champ P.A., Boyle K.J., and Brown T.C. (Eds). A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (2003), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
12. Holmes T.P., and Kramer R.A. An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economic Management 29 (1995) 121-132
13. Johnson F.R., Mathews K.E., and Bingham M.F. Evaluating welfare-theoretic consistency in multiple-response stated-preference surveys. TER Working Paper T-0003 (2000), Triangle Economic Research, Durham, NC
14. Krinsky I., and Robb A. Approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (1986) 715-719
15. National Academy of Sciences. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation and the Science Base (1992), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C
16. National Assessment Synthesis Team. Climate Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (2000), U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C.
17. O'Conor R.M., Johannesson M., and Johansson P.O. Stated preferences, real behavior, and anchoring: some empirical evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 13 (1999) 235-248
18. Ready R.C., Buzby J.C., and Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics 72 (1996) 297-411
19. Ready R.C., Navrud S., and Dubourg W.R. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions?. Land Economics 77 (2001) 315-326
20. Rowe R.D., Schulze W.D., and Breffle W.S. A test for payment card biases. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 (1996) 178-185
21. U.S. Department of State. U.S. Climate Action Report (2002), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.