Die Expertenbewertung als Alternative zur Kontingenzbewertung
A lot of research is carried out on the Contingent Valuation Method to assess environmental goods. However, the method is rarely applied to quantify reimbursements for agri-environmental policy. In this paper, this contradiction is explained by conceptual shortcomings of the Contingent Valuation. It is suggested to discuss the utility of agri-environmental programs among experts. For that, a three-step methodology including a possible monetary evaluation is developed. The method is applied on agri-environmental programs in Switzerland.
Volume (Year): 52 (2003)
Issue (Month): 8 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Philippstr. 13, 10115 Berlin|
Phone: +49 (0)30 2093 6305
Fax: +49 (0)30 2093 6497
Web page: http://www.gjae-online.de/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- W. George Hutchinson & Susan M. Chilton & John Davis, 1995. "Measuring Non-Use Value Of Environmental Goods Using The Contingent Valuation Method: Problems Of Information And Cognition And The Application Of Cognitive Questionnaire Design Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 97-112.
- Harris, Charles C. & Driver, B. L. & McLaughlin, William J., 1989. "Improving the contingent valuation method: A psychological perspective," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 213-229, November.
- Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
- Christopher Leggett, 2002. "Environmental Valuation with Imperfect Information The Case of the Random Utility Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(3), pages 343-355, November.
- Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
- C. Benassi & A. E. Scorcu, 2002.
"Indexation Rules, Risk Aversion, and Imperfect Information,"
450, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
- Corrado Benassi & Antonello E. Scorcu, 2003. "Indexation Rules, Risk Aversion and Imperfect Information," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 71(3), pages 330-340, 06.
- Morrison, Gwendolyn C, 2000. "The Endowment Effect and Expected Utility," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(2), pages 183-97, May.
- Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
- Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
- Mark Sagoff, 1994. "Should Preferences Count?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 127-144.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:98084. 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: (AgEcon Search)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.