Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Exploring divergence between respondent and researcher definitions of the good in contingent valuation studies.

Lookup NU author(s): Professor Susan Chilton

Downloads

Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


Abstract

In Contingent Valuation studies, researchers often base their definition of the environmental good on scientific/expert consensus. However; respondents may not hold this same commodity definition prior to the transaction. This raises questions as to the potential for staging a satisfactory transaction, based on Fischoff and Furby's (1988) criteria. Some unresolved issues regarding the provision of information to respondents to facilitate such a transaction are highlighted. In this paper; we apply content analysis to focus group discussions and develop a set of rules which take account of the non-independence of group data to explore whether researcher and respondents' prior definitions are in any way similar We use the results to guide information provision in a subsequent questionnaire.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Chilton SM, Hutchinson MG

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Journal of Agricultural Economics

Year: 1999

Volume: 50

Issue: 1

Pages: 1-16

Print publication date: 01/01/1999

ISSN (print): 0021-857X

ISSN (electronic): 1477-9552

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00791.x

DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00791.x


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Actions

Find at Newcastle University icon    Link to this publication


Share