Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Can Contingent Valuation Distinguish Economic Values for Different Public Goods?

Contents:

Author Info

  • V. Kerry Smith

Abstract

This paper reports the first test evaluating whether stated choices as part of a contingent valuation survey discriminate between significant and trivial causes. Using a random digit dialed sample for North Carolina, two different plans were posed to respondents-one to expand a popular North Carolina highway flower planting program nationwide and a second to facilitate the use of recycled tires in making asphalt for highways. Random assignment, identical payment mechanisms, and overall question designs were used. The results indicate clear discrimination in choices, choice functions, and the estimated willingness to pay for the two plans.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146962
Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

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.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 72 (1996)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 139-151

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:2:p:139-151

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

Related research

Keywords:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
  2. Dominika Parry Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2005. "Valuing Air Quality in Poland," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(2), pages 131-163, 02.
  3. Barreiro Hurlé, J. & Pérez Y Pérez, L, 2001. "Coste vs. Eficiencia: utilización de entrevistadores no profesionales en valoración contingente," Estudios de Economía Aplicada, Estudios de Economía Aplicada, vol. 18, pages 5-19, Agosto.
  4. Gibson, Fiona L. & Burton, Michael P., 2009. "Biased estimates in discrete choice models: the appropriate inclusion of psychometric data into the valuation of recycled wastewater," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47943, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  5. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
  6. John C. Whitehead & William B. Clifford & Thomas J. Hoban, 2000. "“WTP for Research and Extension Programs: Divergent Validity of Contingent Valuation with Single and Multiple Bound Valuation Questions,”," Working Papers 0002, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
  7. Anne ROZAN & Marc WILLINGER, 1999. "Does the knowledge of the origin of the health damage matter for WTP estimates?," Working Papers of BETA 9904, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
  8. Roach, Brian & Wade, William W., 2006. "Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 421-433, June.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:2:p:139-151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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