Download Info

To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

Volume (Year): 25 (1993)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Pages: 45-55
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:25:y:1993:i:1:p:45-55

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Heidi Boesdal).

Related research

Keywords:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

1. David Comerford & Liam Delaney & Colm Harmon, 2009. "Experimental Tests of Survey Responses to Expenditure Questions," Working Papers 200925, Geary Institute, University College Dublin. [Downloadable!]
   Other versions:
   • Comerford, David & Delaney, Liam & Harmon, Colm P., 2009. "Experimental Tests of Survey Responses to Expenditure Questions," IZA Discussion Papers 4389, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). [Downloadable!]
2. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
3. Hitzhusen, Fred & Abdul-Mohsen, Ashraf & Kruse, Sarah, 2004. "Toward Improved Economic Analysis Using Contingent Valuation: Some Methodological Considerations Applied To River Toxics And Dam Removal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20326, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association). [Downloadable!]
4. Blamey, R. & Common, M. & Quiggin, J., 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(03), December. [Downloadable!]
5. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
6. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
7. John C. Whitehead & Timothy Haab & Ju-Chin Huang, . "Part-Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Working Papers 9707, East Carolina University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
   Other versions:
   • John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang, 1998. "Part-Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
8. Michael Lockwood, 1999. "Preference Structures, Property Rights, and Paired Comparisons," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 107-122, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
9. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
10. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
    • Hanley, Nick & Jacobsen, Jette, 2008. "Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation?," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-03, University of Stirling, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
11. Goldberg, Isabell & Roosen, Jutta, 2005. "Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay for a Health Risk Reduction of Salmonellosis and Campylobacteriosis," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24512, European Association of Agricultural Economists. [Downloadable!]
12. M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
13. Loomis, John B. & Larson, Douglas M., 1994. "Total Economic Values of Increasing Gray Whale Populations: Results from a Contingent Valuation Survey of Visitors and Households," Marine Resource Economics, Marine Resources Foundation, vol. 9(3). [Downloadable!]

Did you know? You too can volunteer for RePEc, for example by editing a NEP report.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-3.