Empirical Evidence Showing The Relationships Between Three Approaches For Pollution Control
Willingness to pay models have shown the theoretical relationships between the contingent valuation, cost of illness and the avertive behaviour approaches. In this paper, field survey data are used to compare the relationships between these three approaches and to demonstrate that contingent valuation bids exceed the sum of cost of illness and the avertive behaviour approach estimates. The estimates provide a validity check for CV bids and further support the claim that contingent valuation studies are theoretically consistent.
|Date of creation:||Aug 2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: St. Lucia, Qld. 4072|
Phone: +61 7 3365 6570
Fax: +61 7 3365 7299
Web page: http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/index.html
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000.
"Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence,"
University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series
qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Anna Alberini & Alan Krupnick, 2000. "Cost-of-Illness and Willingness-to-Pay Estimates of the Benefits of Improved Air Quality: Evidence from Taiwan," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 37-53.
- Dale Whittington, 1996.
"Administering Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries,"
EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper
sp199601t1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jan 1996.
- Whittington, Dale, 1998. "Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-30, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uqseee:48952. 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: (AgEcon Search)
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.