Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management

By Thomas Stevens, R. Belkner, Don C. Dennis, D. Kittredge, C. Willis. 2000

176 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation (2007, background): “Stevens et al. (2000) propose that their finding of higher CA estimates than close-ended CV estimates applied to landowners’ valuations of ecosystem management, was due to upward bias in CA, since uncertain choices were not distinguishable from certain choices.”
The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis (2009, background): “Use of these conjoint techniques to value natural resources have been found to result in higher WTP estimates than when CVM is used (Stevens et al., 2000).”
Don't Think Twice, It's All Right: Music Piracy and Pricing in a DRM-Free Environment (2010, background): “…and disadvantages, along with their own set of detractors (Diamond and Hausman 1994; Hausman 1993) and supporters (Hanemann 1994), there is no consensus that any one method is clearly preferable to the other (Foster and Mourato 2003; Hanley, Mourato, and Wright 2001; Stevens et al. 2000).”
Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates (2007, background): “A number of comparative studies of CV and CM can be found in the literature (Boxall et al. 1996; Adamowicz et al. 1998; Hanley et al. 1998a; Stevens et al. 2000; Lehtonen et al. 2003; Bateman et al. 2006).”