Lookup NU author(s): Professor Susan Chilton
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
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.
Author(s): Chilton SM, Hutchinson MG
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Journal of Agricultural Economics
Print publication date: 01/01/1999
ISSN (print): 0021-857X
ISSN (electronic): 1477-9552
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric