IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v13y2007i1p29-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Veisten, Knut

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 29-48, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:13:y:2007:i:1:p:29-48
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1104-6899(06)00048-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    3. Louviere, Jordan J., 1992. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 89-95, March.
    4. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. " Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    6. Magat, Wesley A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Huber, Joel, 1988. "Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 395-411, December.
    7. Green, Paul E, 1974. " On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 61-68, Se.
    8. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    9. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    10. O'Brien, Kelly A. & Teisl, Mario F., 2004. "Eco-information and its effect on consumer values for environmentally certified forest products," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 75-96, September.
    11. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    12. Roger A. Sedjo & Stephen K. Swallow, 2002. "Voluntary Eco-Labeling and the Price Premium," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 272-284.
    13. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    14. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    15. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15.
    17. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    18. Juan de Dios Ortúzar & Luis A Cifuentes & Huw C W L Williams, 2000. "Application of willingness-to-pay methods to value transport externalities in less developed countries," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 32(11), pages 2007-2018, November.
    19. Kealy, Mary Jo & Montgomery, Mark & Dovidio, John F., 1990. "Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: Does the nature of the good matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 244-263, November.
    20. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1987. "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521348102, April.
    21. Bengt Kriström, 1997. "Spike Models in Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 1013-1023.
    22. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Estimation du poids d'un attribut environnemental : influence et effet des mesures d'évaluation," Post-Print halshs-01185772, HAL.
    2. Wan, Minli & Toppinen, Anne, 2016. "Effects of perceived product quality and Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) on consumer price preferences for children's furniture in China," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 52-67.
    3. Lihra, Torsten & Buehlmann, Urs & Graf, Raoul, 2012. "Customer preferences for customized household furniture," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 94-112.
    4. Nouira, Imen & Frein, Yannick & Hadj-Alouane, Atidel B., 2014. "Optimization of manufacturing systems under environmental considerations for a greenness-dependent demand," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 188-198.
    5. Yuki Yamamoto & Kenji Takeuchi & Takayoshi Shinkuma, 2012. "Are There Price Premiums for Certified Wood?Empirical Evidence from Log Auction Data in Japan," Discussion Papers 1209, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
    6. Yamamoto, Yuki & Takeuchi, Kenji & Shinkuma, Takayoshi, 2014. "Is there a price premium for certified wood? Empirical evidence from log auction data in Japan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 168-172.
    7. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Cai, Zhen, 2010. "Conjoint effect of environmental labeling, disclosure of forest of origin and price on consumer preferences for wood products in the US and UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 308-316, December.
    8. Jaqueline Garcia-Yi, 2014. "Identification of Dried Native Chili Markets in the International Tourism Sector in Peru: An Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 6(2), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Cai, Zhen & Mohebalian, Phillip & Thompson, Wyatt, 2015. "Exploring the drivers' side of the “blend wall”: U.S. consumer preferences for ethanol blend fuels," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 217-226.
    10. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Toujours plus, toujours mieux ? Effet contre-intuitif de l'évaluation des attributs environnementaux du produit par le consommateur," Post-Print halshs-01185784, HAL.

    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:eee:foreco:v:13:y:2007:i:1:p:29-48. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.