IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v8y1996i1p119-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nonresponse in Contingent Valuation-reducing uncertainty in value inference

Author

Listed:
  • Göran Bostedt
  • Mattias Boman

Abstract

This paper focuses on problems associated with nonresponse in Contingent Valuation surveys. The results from a telephone follow-up survey show that value inference can be considerably improved by information on nonrespondents' attitudes. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Suggested Citation

  • Göran Bostedt & Mattias Boman, 1996. "Nonresponse in Contingent Valuation-reducing uncertainty in value inference," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(1), pages 119-124, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:8:y:1996:i:1:p:119-124
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00340656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00340656
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00340656?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carson, R.T. & Mitchell, R.C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Kopp, R.J. & Presser, S. & Ruud, P.A., 1992. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," MPRA Paper 6984, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1993. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521447928, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kawata, Yukichika & Watanabe, Masahide, 2012. "Valuing the mortality risk of wildlife reintroduction: Heterogeneous risk preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 79-86.
    2. Balmford, Ben & Bateman, Ian J. & Bolt, Katherine & Day, Brett & Ferrini, Silvia, 2019. "The value of statistical life for adults and children: Comparisons of the contingent valuation and chained approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 68-84.
    3. Dietz, Brian, 2001. "An Analysis Of Statistical Errors In Contingent Valuation Surveys," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20462, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Göran Bostedt & Göran Ericsson & Jonas Kindberg, 2008. "Contingent values as implicit contracts: estimating minimum legal willingness to pay for conservation of large carnivores in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 189-198, February.
    5. Douglas Macmillan & Elizabeth Duff & David Elston, 2001. "Modelling the Non-market Environmental Costs and Benefits of Biodiversity Projects Using Contingent Valuation Data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(4), pages 391-410, April.

    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. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    2. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
    3. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(2), pages 335-338, May.
    4. Ellen Moons, 2003. "The development and application of economic valuation techniques and their use in environmental policy - A survey," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0307, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment.
    5. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    6. Broberg, Thomas, 2007. "Assessing the non-timber value of old-growth forests in Sweden," Umeå Economic Studies 712, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    7. Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Alberini, Anna & Chiabai, Aline, 2007. "Urban environmental health and sensitive populations: How much are the Italians willing to pay to reduce their risks?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 239-258, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Bente Halvorsen, 2004. "Effects of norms, warm-glow and time use on household recycling," Discussion Papers 389, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    11. Aline Chiabai & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, 2006. "Economic Valuation of Oceanographic Forecasting Services: A Cost-Benefit Exercise," Working Papers 2006.104, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Gökşen, Fatoş & Adaman, Fikret & Zenginobuz, Unal, 2001. "On environmental concern, willingness to pay, and postmaterialist values: Evidence from Istanbul," MPRA Paper 192, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Göran Ericsson & Mattias Boman & Leif Mattsson, 2000. "Selective versus Random Moose Harvesting: Does it Pay to be a Prudent Predator?," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 117-132, May.
    14. Robert Mitchell, 2002. "On Designing Constructed Markets in Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 297-321, June.
    15. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    16. Adaman, Fikret & Gökşen, Fatoş & Zenginobuz, Unal, 2003. "Political economy of citizens’ participation in environmental improvement: The case of Istanbul," MPRA Paper 375, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann, & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert C. Mitchell & Stanley Presser & Paul A. Rudd & V. Kerry Smith & Michael Conaway & Kerry Martin, 1997. "Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 151-163.
    18. Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001. "The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
    19. Bente Halvorsen, 2009. "Conflicting Interests in Environmental Policy-making?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(2), pages 287-305, October.
    20. 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.

    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:kap:enreec:v:8:y:1996:i:1:p:119-124. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.