IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ucbecw/198276.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?

Author

Listed:
  • Hanemann, W.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanemann, W., 1989. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," CUDARE Working Papers 198276, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ucbecw:198276
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.198276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/198276/files/agecon-cal-328.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.198276?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory, Robin, 1986. "Interpreting measures of economic loss: Evidence from contingent valuation and experimental studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 325-337, December.
    2. Thayer, Mark A., 1981. "Contingent valuation techniques for assessing environmental impacts: Further evidence," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 27-44, March.
    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. Macnab, Bruce J. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1990. "Two Experiments on the Difference between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Staff Paper Series 232443, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    2. Bowker, J. M. & MacDonald, H. F., 1992. "An Economic Analysis of Localized Pollution: Rendering Emissions in a Residential Setting," 1992 Annual Meeting, August 9-12, Baltimore, Maryland 271381, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Catherine Heyes & Anthony Heyes, 1999. "Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 124-139, January.
    4. George H. Lentz & Ko Wang, 1998. "Residential Appraisal and the Lending Process: A Survey of Issues," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 15(1), pages 11-40.
    5. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B.L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits Of Private Land: The Case Of Prime Agricultural Land," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, July.
    7. Bromley, Daniel W., 1995. "Property rights and natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 129-135, August.
    8. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1985. "Demand Based And Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Comparison," 1985 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Ames, Iowa 278557, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Caroline Gauthier, 2000. "Révélation du CAP : question ouverte ou question fermée ? Une application à la biodiversité des forêts riveraines de la Garonne," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 143(2), pages 237-245.
    10. James J. Opaluch & Kathleen Segerson, 1988. "Hicksian Welfare Measures within a Regret Theory Framework," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1100-1106.
    11. Bakkenbüll, Linn-Brit & Dilger, Alexander, 2016. "Willingness to pay and accept for hosting Olympic Games in Germany," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 11/2016, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    12. Opaluch, James J. & Segerson, Kathleen, 1989. "Rational Roots Of "Irrational" Behavior: New Theories Of Economic Decision-Making," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 18(2), pages 1-15, October.
    13. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus, 1998. "An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 187-193, September.
    14. Jung-Eun Kim & Jungsung Yeo, 2010. "Valuation of Consumers’ Personal Information: A South Korean Example," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306, September.
    15. Ukwueze Ezebuilo & Ogujiuba Kanayo & Adenuga Adeniyi, 2005. "How Useful Is Contingent Valuation Of The Environment To Water Services? Evidence From South East, Nigeria," Econometrics 0512012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Smith, V. Kerry, . "Some Issues In Discrete Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-4.
    17. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    18. Spash, Clive L., 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," MPRA Paper 101234, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Praktiknjo, Aaron J., 2014. "Stated preferences based estimation of power interruption costs in private households: An example from Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 82-90.
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    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:ucbecw:198276. 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/dabrkus.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.