20 Years of Stated Preference Valuation of Non-Timber Benefits from Fennoscandian Forests: A Meta-Analysis

141 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.

Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes (2011, unknown): “A recent study by Maguire (2009) also finds higher mean WTP in the telephone mode than the mail and f2f modes, indicating, as the author states, social desirability bias in the telephone mode.”
Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation? (2009, background): “Only a few previous meta-analyses have focused on such non-use values (e.g. Lindhjem et al. 2007).”
How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers? (2008, unknown): “This paper aims to investigate the validity and reliability of international MA-BT of Non-timber benefits (NTBs) based on a recently published MA of contingent valuation (CV) research in Fennoscandia (a term for Norway, Sweden and Finland) (Lindhjem, 2007).”
A meta-analysis of residential water demand studies (2014, methodology): “It is used in many meta-analyses, including Gallet (2010), Lindhjem (2007), van Houtven et al. (2007), Brander et al. (2007), Espey and Espey (2004) and Dalhuisen et al. (2003).”
A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies (2010, methodology): “Lindhjem (2007) points out that this conclusion could be a result of a combination of the weaknesses in stated preference survey design (especially an unclear scenario and good descriptions) and respondents' difficulties in assessing a complex and multidimensional forest good.”