IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v71y1989i1p76-84..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses

Author

Listed:
  • John B. Loomis

Abstract

The reliability of the contingent valuation method is evaluated by resurveying the same general households and visitors nine months after their original survey. Test-retest correlations on willingness to pay are statistically significant and ranged from. 422 for the general population sample to. 782 for the visitor sample. Using a paired T-test, there was no statistical difference between an individual's first and second reported willingness to pay. Chow tests comparing the original and resurvey willingness-to-pay functions showed no statistical difference at the .01 level. Reported willingness to pay is reasonably stable over the time period surveyed.

Suggested Citation

  • John B. Loomis, 1989. "Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(1), pages 76-84.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:71:y:1989:i:1:p:76-84.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1241776
    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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:ajagec:v:71:y:1989:i:1:p:76-84.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.