IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeeman/v21y1991i2p97-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recovering weakly complementary preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Larson, Douglas M.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Larson, Douglas M., 1991. "Recovering weakly complementary preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 97-108, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:21:y:1991:i:2:p:97-108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0095-0696(91)90035-H
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen C. Newbold & Patrick J. Walsh & D. Matthew Massey & Julie Hewitt, 2018. "Using structural restrictions to achieve theoretical consistency in benefit transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 529-553, March.
    2. Kovacs, Kent F. & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Recreation at open space and residential development patterns," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 271502, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Larson, Douglas & Lew, Daniel & Loomis, John, 1999. "Are Revealed Preference Measures of Quality Change Benefits Statistically Significant?," Western Region Archives 321712, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    4. V. Smith & Subhrendu Pattanayak, 2002. "Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 271-296, June.
    5. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2004. "What's the use? welfare estimates from revealed preference models when weak complementarity does not hold," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 55-70, January.
    6. V. Smith & George Van Houtven, 2004. "Recovering Hicksian Consumer Surplus within a Collective Model: Hausman's Method for the Household," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(2), pages 153-167, June.
    7. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
    8. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    9. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    10. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    11. John Whitehead & Daniel Phaneuf & Christopher Dumas & Jim Herstine & Jeffery Hill & Bob Buerger, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 91-112, January.
    12. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2005. "Weak complementarity, path independence, and the intuition of the Willig condition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 103-115, January.
    13. David G. Brown, 2008. "Preference-Theoretic Weak Complementarity: Getting More with Less," Departmental Working Papers 2008-09, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    14. von Haefen, Roger H., 2007. "Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 15-31, July.
    15. David G. Brown, 2009. "A Revealed Preference Feasibility Condition for Weak Complementarity," Departmental Working Papers 2009-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    16. Neill, Jon R., 2022. "Using consumer’s surplus to bound willingness to pay for non-market goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    17. Bockstael, Nancy E. & Freeman III, A. Myrick, 2006. "Welfare Theory and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 12, pages 517-570, Elsevier.
    18. V. Smith & Mary Evans & H. Banzhaf & Christine Poulos, 2010. "Can Weak Substitution be Rehabilitated?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 203-221, February.
    19. Ebert, Udo, 2007. "Revealed preference and household production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 276-289, March.
    20. Ebert, Udo, 2001. "A general approach to the evaluation of nonmarket goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 373-388, October.
    21. Udo Ebert, 2010. "On the Measurement of Welfare for Market and Nonmarket Goods: A Numerical Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 102-109.

    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:eee:jeeman:v:21:y:1991:i:2:p:97-108. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870 .

    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.