How do respondents explain WTP responses? A review of the qualitative evidence

Journal of Socio-Economics

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1427-1442

  Baker, Rachel ^a   Robinson, Angela ^b   Smith, Richard ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Qualitative research; Systematic review; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 44349166269     PISSN: 10535357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2007.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Acton, J.P., 1976. Evaluating public programs to save lives: the case of heart attacks. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Report No. R950RC.
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leamer E., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 59 (1993) 1062-1191
3. Bateman I., Carson R., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Ozdemeroglu E., Pearce D., Sugden R., and Swanson J. Economic Valuation with States Preference Techniques: A Manual (2002), Department for Transport Publications, Edward Elgar
4. Coast J., McDonald R., and Baker R. Issues arising from the use of qualitative methods in health economics. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 9 3 (2004) 171-176
5. Dixons-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., and Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 10 1 (2005) 45-53
6. Dubourg W.R., Jones-Lee M.W., and Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and survey design in contingent valuation. Economica 64 (1997) 681-702
7. Gafni A. Willingness to pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programmes. Medical Care 29 (1991) 1246-1252
8. Jones-Lee, M.W., Loomes, G., Philips, P.R., 1995. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation vs. standard gambles. Oxford Economic Papers 47, pp. 676-695.
9. Loomis J., Lockwood M., and DeLacy T. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24 1 (1993) 45-55
10. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R., 1993. Current issues in the design, administration and analysis of contingent valuation surveys. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, SanDiego, Cal.
11. Olsen J.A., and Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Social Science and Medicine 46 (1998) 1-12
12. Olsen J.A., Donaldson C., and Pereira J. The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: New evidence from health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 25 (2004) 445-460
13. Petticrew M., and Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide (2006), Blackwell, Oxford
14. Smith R.D. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Economics 12 8 (2003) 609-628
15. Smith, R.D., 2004. Contingent valuation in health care: Is there more to it than just valuing health status? Paper Presented to the Health Economists' Study Group, Glasgow, July 2004.
16. Smith R.D. Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint. Journal of Health Economics 24 (2005) 515-529