Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods

By Glenn W. Harrison. 2006

241 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0f50be258dede065354aaf3557f834b86de0fd93

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Get Real! Individuals Prefer More Sustainable Investments (2018, unknown): “…and Verbeke (2006); Beshears et al. (2008); Harrison and Rutström (2008); Gracia et al. (2011); FeldmanHall et al. (2012); De-Magistris et al. (2013); Terlau and Hirsch (2015); for an overview see Harrison (2006b); Loomis (2014); for a meta-study see List and Gallet (2001); Murphy et al. (2005).”
2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys (2014, background): “Likewise, in private good experiments, respondents’ maximum WTP may be truncated by their assessment of the price for which a similar good sells in the market (Harrison, 2006; Harrison, Harstad, and Rutstrom, 2004).”
Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data to Estimate the Nonmarket Value of Ecological Services: An Assessment of the State of the Science (2008, unknown): “Louviere, Hensher and Swait (2000) identified several modeling approaches that allow all unobserved components of utility to predict choice.”
Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality (2009, methodology): “inconsequential choice setting as the experimental analog to a SP survey [3, 4, 8, 9, 12].”
Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias using Follow-up Certainty Statements: Comparisons between Probably/Definitely and a 10-point Certainty Scale (2009, unknown): “Meta-analyses by List and Gallet (2001), Little and Berrens (2004) and reviews by Harrison (2006 ) a ndHarrison and Rutstrom (2008) suggest that contingent valuation tends to produce hypothetical bias in the form of overestimation of actual (real) value.”
What's to Know About Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies? (2011, unknown): “Harrison (2006) suggests that many of the promising approaches developed in the experimental economics ‘beg for validation in field experiments’ (p.”
Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment (2008, unknown): “(2001) and reviews by Harrison (2006) and Harrison and Rutström (forthcoming) also”
Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches (2007, unknown): “Surprisingly, hypothetical bias is downplayed in much of the CVM literature (Harrison, 2006).”
Preference Elicitation under Oath (2010, unknown): “g, Harrison, Harstad, and Rutström (2004), if all actual offers are below the market price (which is far from being the case in the experiment, see Section 4.”
Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates (2007, methodology): “…1, May 2006) addresses a number of issues related to the uncertainty of the CM method such as: constructing of contextual frame of the choice occasion (Harrison 2006; Shogren 2006); designing of choice sets and the structure of choice occasion (Hensher 2006); modelling of preference heterogeneity…”