Using contingent valuation to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation
The methods and results of a contingent valuation survey to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation are reported. The study demonstrates that not only is it important to acknowledge that there will be losers from the introduction of such a programme but that losers must be allowed to express a value for the magnitude of their perceived loss. Two methods of valuing this loss are explored. Conventional willingness to accept compensation questions are compared with questions in which losers are asked to state their willingness to pay to prevent their water being fluoridated. The results provide tentative support for asking willingness to pay to prevent questions instead of willingness to accept questions when evaluating certain types of public good. The issue of protest responses in contingent valuation surveys is also highlighted and discussed.
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 32 (2000)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAEC20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:32:y:2000:i:6:p:777-787. 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: (Michael McNulty)
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.