Does "no" mean "no"? A protest methodology

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 71-87

  Dziegielewska, Dominika A ^a,c   Mendelsohn, Robert ^b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Yale School of the Environment   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Air quality; Contingent Valuation; Embedding; Protest voters; Sequencing

Indexed keywords

AIR QUALITY; DATA REDUCTION; SURVEYS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; PROTEST VOTERS; SEQUENCING;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; POLAND;

EID: 34547463077     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-006-9057-4     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Arrow K et al (2002) Appendix I: report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. In: Cost-benefit analysis, 297-323, Elgar reference collection. International library of critical writings in economics, vol 152. Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass., distributed by American International Distribution Corporation, Williston, Vt
2. Boyle KJ, Welsh MP, Bishop RC (1993) The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies. J Environ Econ Manage 25(1):S80-S99
3. Cameron TA, James MD (1987) Efficient estimation methods for close-ended contingent valuation surveys. Rev Econ Stat 69(2):269-276
4. Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manage 15(3):355-79
5. Carson, RT, Groves T, Machina MJ (2000) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, California (www.econ.ucsd.edu/%Ercarson/cgm,pdf)
6. Council of the European Union (1999) Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations. Official Journal 29:0001-0022
7. Dziegielewska DA, Mendelsohn R (2005) Valuing air quality in Poland. Environ Resour Econ 30(2):131-163
8. Halstead JM, Luloff AE, ThomasStevens H (1992) Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern J Agric Resour Econ 21(2):160-169
9. Hammitt JK, Zhou Y (2006) The economic value of air-pollution-related health risks in china: a contingent valuation study. Environ Resour Econ 33(3):399-423
10. Hanemann WM, (1984) Welfare Evaluation in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3):182-84
11. Hanemann WM, Loomis, J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73(4):1255-63
12. Hanemann WM, Kanninen B (1996) The statistical analysis of discrete-response. CV Data, Working paper
13. Huang JC, Smith VK (1998) Monte Carlo benchmarks for discrete response valuation methods. Land Econ 74(2):186-202
14. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, and Nancarrow BE et al (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14(1):131-50
15. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (1995) Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation. J Water Resour: Plan Manage 121(5):400-402
16. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for storm water pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33(2):251-265
17. Lindsey G (1994) Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation. J Water Resour: Plan Manage 120(1):121-129
18. McCollum DW, Boyle KJ (2005) The effect of respondent experience/knowledge in the elicitation of contingent values: an investigation of convergent validity, procedural invariance and reliability. Environ Resour Econ 30(1):23-33
19. McConnell K (1990) Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 18(1):19-34
20. McFadden D (1974) The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand. J Publ Econ 3(4):303-328
21. Markowska A, Zylicz T (1999) Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea. Ecol Econ 30(2):301-16
22. Sutherland RJ, Walsh RG (1985) Effects of distance on the preservation of water quality. Land Econ 61(3):281-291
23. Whittington D et al (1992) Giving Respondents Time to Think in Contingent Valuation Studies: A Developing Countries Application. J Environ Econ Manage 22(3):205-225
24. Zylicz T, Bateman I, Georgiou S, Markowska A, Dziegielewska D, Turner RK, Graham A, Langford I (1995) The Baltic drainage basin project: contingent valuation of eutrophication damage in the Baltic Sea region. CSERGE, Working Paper
25. Zylicz, T (2000) Costing nature in a transition economy: case studies in Poland. Northampton Mass Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham UK