IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijarge/v2y2002i1p22-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking contingent valuation: ethics versus defensibility?

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Morrison

Abstract

Designers of stated preference studies have placed emphasis in recent years on ensuring that questionnaires are defensible, and that all "hypothetical" elements are removed. A potential problem with this emphasis is that it can unwittingly increase the hypothetical nature of the survey as well as necessitating the use of ethically questionable statements. An alternative approach is recommended that is ethically better and potentially less susceptible to hypothetical bias. This approach is demonstrated using three case studies. The results indicate that designing questionnaires in an ethically neutral manner does not automatically lead to poorer quality models.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Morrison, 2002. "Rethinking contingent valuation: ethics versus defensibility?," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 22-36.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijarge:v:2:y:2002:i:1:p:22-36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=20
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijarge:v:2:y:2002:i:1:p:22-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=1 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.