Valuing Complex Goods: or, Can You Get Anything Out of Experts Other Than a Decision?

Research in Law and Economics

Volumn 23, Issue , 2007, Pages 301-335

  Groom, Ben ^a   Kontoleon, Andreas ^a   Swanson, Tim ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547732432     PISSN: 01935895     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0193-5895(07)23013-1     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Ajzen I., Brown T.C., and Rosenthal L.H. Information bias in contingent valuation: Effect of personal relevance, quality of information and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 43-57
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Leamer E., Portney P., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 (1993) 4601-4614
3. Bateman, I. J, Cole, M., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Hadley, D., & POE, G. L. (2001). Visible choice sets and scope sensitivity: An experimental and field test of study design effects upon contingent values. Paper submitted to the eleventh annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), June 28-30, University of Southampton, UK.
4. Bergstrom J.C., Stoll J.R., and Randall A. Information effects in contingent markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 3 (1989) 685-691
5. Bergstrom J.C., Stoll J.R., and Randall A. The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 (1990) 614-621
6. Blamey R.K. Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 34 (1998) 577-601
7. Blomquist G.C., and Whitehead J.C. Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 20 (1998) 179-196
8. Boyle K.J. Commodity specification and the framing of contingent valuation questions. Land Economics 65 (1989) 57-63
9. Boyle K.J., Welsh M.P., Bishop R.C., and Baumgartner R.M. Validating contingent valuation with surveys of experts. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review October (1995) 247-254
10. Cameron T.A., and Englin J. Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 (1997) 296-313
11. Chilton S.M., and Hutchinson W.G. Exploring divergence between respondent and researcher definitions of the good in contingent valuation. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50 1 (1999) 1-16
12. Clark J., Burgess J., and Harrison C.M. I struggled with this money business: Respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 33 (2000) 45-62
13. Dunford R.W., Johnson F.R., Sandefur R.A., and West E.S. Whose losses count in natural resources damages?. Contemporary Economic Policy 15 4 (1997) 77-87
14. Fischoff B., Slovic P., and Lichenstein S. Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. In: Wallstein T.S. (Ed). Cognitive process in consumer and decision behaviour (1980), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
15. Hoevenagel R., and van der Linden J.W. Effects of different descriptions of the ecological good on willingness to pay values. Ecological Economics 7 (1993) 223-238
16. Hutchinson G.W., Chilton S.M., and Davis J. Measuring non-use values of environmental goods using the 0 contingent valuation method: Problems of information and cognition and the application of cognitive questionnaire design methods. Journal of Agricultural Economics 46 1 (1995) 97-112
17. Johnson F.R., Richard W.D., William H.D., and Melissa R.B. Role of knowledge in assessing non-use values for natural resource damages. Growth and Change 32 1 (2001) 43-68
18. Kenyon W., and Edward-Jones G. What level of information enables the public to act like experts when evaluating ecological goods?. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 4184 (1998) 463-475
19. Kontoleon A., Macrory R., and Swanson T. Individual preference based values and environmental decision making: Should valuation have its day in court?. Research in Law and Economics 20 (2002) 177-214
20. Kuo N.-W., and Yu Y.-H. An evaluation system for national park selection in Taiwan. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42 5 (1999) 735-745
21. Linstone H.A., and Turoff M. The Delphi method, techniques and applications (1976), Addison-Wesley, London
22. Loomis J., Gonzales-Caban A., and Gregory R. Do reminders of substitute and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates?. Land Economics 70 (1994) 499-506
23. MacMillan, D. C., Hanley, N., Philip, L. & Begona, A. (2000). Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: A comparison of individual interview and group-based approaches. Mimeo, University of Aberdeen, University of Glasgow.
24. May, G. H., & Green, D. H. (1990). Planning for the future: The application of the Delphi techniques to the unitary development plan process, CUDEM Working Paper Series 7, Metropolitan Leeds University, Leeds.
25. Milgrom P. Good news and bad news: Representation theorems and applications. Bell Journal of Economics 12 (1981) 380-391
26. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method (1989), Washington, Johns Hopkins University Press, DC
27. Munro A., and Hanley N.D. Information, uncertainty, and contingent valuation. In: Bateman I., and Willis K. (Eds). Valuing the environment preferences (2000), Oxford University Press, Oxford
28. Sagoff M. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics 2 2-3 (1998) 213-230
29. Samples K.C., Dixon J.A., and Gowen M.M. Information disclosure and endangered species valuation. Land Economics 62 3 (1986) 306-312
30. Tans, W. (1974). Priority ranking of biotic natural areas, Michigan botanist, 13, 31-39, Michigan Botanist, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh.
31. Whitehead J.C., and Blomquist G.C. Measuring contingent values for wetlands: Effect of information about related environmental goods. Water Resources Research 27 (1991) 2523-2531