Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality

139 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.

Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies (2017, result): “Similar findings are reported by Carson et al. (2014) and Vossler and Evans (2009).”
2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys (2014, background): “A study by Vossler and Kerkvliet (2003) was one of the first to find similarity between an actual referendum (in Oregon) and a CVM study.”
Social Norms, Morals and Self-interest as Determinants of Pro-environment Behaviours: The Case of Household Recycling (2014, result): “…et al. 2014), and in particular—the lack of perceived consequentiality of the survey, the importance of which has been demonstrated by both theoretical and empirical work (Nepal et al. 2009; Vossler and Evans 2009; Herriges et al. 2010; Broadbent 2012; Vossler et al. 2012; Vossler and Watson 2013).”
Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field (2012, unknown): “, 2004; Landry and List, 2007) and public goods (Vossler and Evans, 2009).”