Can Contingent Valuation Distinguish Economic Values for Different Public Goods?
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.
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.
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.