Notice of Retraction: Differences between open-ended and dichotomous choice elicitation technologies: A case study in Northwest China

ICAMS 2010 - Proceedings of 2010 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Management Science

Volumn 3, Issue , 2010, Pages 275-278

  Liu, Jianguo ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS   (China)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method (CVM); Dichotomous choice; Northwest China; Open ended; Willingness to pay (WTP)

Indexed keywords

IRRIGATION;

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHODS; DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE; NORTHWEST CHINA; OPEN-ENDED; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECONOMICS;

EID: 77957268578     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/ICAMS.2010.5553240     Document Type: TB

References (16)

1. R.T. Carson, N.E. Flores and N. F. Meade, Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence, Environmental and Resources Economics 19(2001), 173-210.
2. D.T. Lauria, D. Whittington and K. Choe (1999), 'Household Demand for Improved Sanitation Services: A Case Study of Calamba, Philippines', in Ken Willis and Ian Bateman, eds., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, pp. 540-581.
3. Z.M. xu, G.D. Cheng, Z.Q. Zhang, Z.Y. Su. Applying the contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecological Economics.44 (2003):345-358.
4. L. Venkatachalam. The contingent valuation method : a review. Environment Impact Assessment Review. 24 (2004):89-124.
5. KJ Boyle, F.R. Johnson, D.W. McCollum, W.H. Desvousges, R. Dunford, S. Hudson. Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. Land Economics; 72(1996): 381- 96.
6. J. Hammack, M.B. Gardner. 1974. Waterfowl and Wetlands: Towards Bioeconomic Analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
7. RG Walsh, JB Loomis, RA. Gillman. Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Economics; 60(1984): 14 - 29.
8. MW Hanemann. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1994):19- 43.
9. J. P.Hoehn, A. Randall. A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics 14(1987), 226-247.
10. RC Ready, JC Buzby, D Hu. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates.Land Economics. 72(1996):397- 411.
11. I J Bateman, I H Langford, T. Kerry. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies [J], Ecological Economics, 12(1995):161-179.
12. K.J. Boyle, R.C Bishop. Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: a comparison of techniques American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1988), 20-28.
13. B. Kriström, Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions, Environmental and Resource Economics, 3(1993):63-71.
14. M.W.Hanemann, J. Loomis, B. Kanninen. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 73(1991), 1255-1263.
15. B. Kriström, A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Economics, 1990, 66(2):135-139.
16. TC Brown, PA. Champ, RC Bishop, DW. McCollum. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?[J] Land Economics, 72(1996):152-66.