IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare92/146526.html

Contingent Valuation at the Farm Gate

Author

Listed:
  • Hector, Johanna

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Hector, Johanna, 1992. "Contingent Valuation at the Farm Gate," 1992 Conference (36th), February 10-13, 1992, Canberra, Australia 146526, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare92:146526
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.146526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/146526/files/1992-04-23-24.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.146526?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Syme, Geoffrey J. & Roberts, E. & McLeod, Paul B., 1990. "Combining willingness to pay and social indicator methodology in valuing public services : An example from agricultural protection," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 365-381, September.
    2. Smith, V. Kerry, 1992. "Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 71-89, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    3. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    4. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    5. Prato, Tony, 1999. "Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-222, August.
    6. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    7. Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Bishop, Richard C., 1999. "Sensitivity To Scope: Evidence From A Cvm Study Of Wetlands," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21513, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Musser, Wesley N. & Musser, Lynn M. & Laughland, Andrew S. & Shortle, James S., "undated". "Contingent Valuation and Averting Costs Estimates of Benefits for Public Water Decisions in a Small Community," AE & RS Research Reports 257727, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    9. Mushtaq Memon & Shunji Matsuoka, 2002. "Validity of contingent valuation estimates from developing countries: scope sensitivity analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 5(1), pages 39-61, March.
    10. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
    11. Jeffrey W. Bennett & M. Carter, 1993. "Prospects For Contingent Valuation: Lessons From The South‐East Forests," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 37(2), pages 79-93, August.
    12. Carson, Richard & Flores, Nicholas E. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1998. "Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 314-323, November.
    13. von Reumont, Louisa & Schöb, Ronnie & Hetschko, Clemens, 2017. "Embedding Effects in the OECD Better Life Index," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168133, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2017. "Constructing Markets: Environmental Economics and the Contingent Valuation Controversy," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 213-239, Supplemen.
    15. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    16. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Sensitivity to scope in contingent valuation – introducing a flexible community analogy to communicate mortality risk reductions," Working Papers 2009:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
    17. Kemp, Simon & Willetts, Karyn, 1995. "Rating the value of government-funded services: Comparison of methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, March.
    18. Thompson, Brielle K. & Sims, Charles & Fisher, Teresa & Brock, Sarah & Dai, Yi & Lenhart, Suzanne, 2022. "A discrete-time bioeconomic model of free-roaming cat management: A case study in Knox County, Tennessee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    19. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    20. Svensson, Mikael & Vredin Johansson, Maria, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Private and Public Safety: Why the Difference?," Working Papers 2007:2, Örebro University, School of Business.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:aare92:146526. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.