arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Comparing Models for Contingent Valuation Surveys: Statistical Efficiency and the Precision of Benefit Estimates

Timothy Park & John B. Loomis

Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics1992https://doi.org/10.1017/s0899367x00002695article
ABDC C
Weight
0.62

What the paper says

This paper empirically tested the three conditions identified by McConnell for equivalence of the linear utility difference model and the valuation function approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Using a contingent valuation survey for deer hunting in California, two of the three conditions were violated. Even though the models are not simple linear transforms of each other for this survey, estimates of mean willingness to pay and their associated 95% confidence intervals around the mean were quite similar for the valuation methods.

11 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0899367x00002695

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{timothy1992,
  title        = {{Comparing Models for Contingent Valuation Surveys: Statistical Efficiency and the Precision of Benefit Estimates}},
  author       = {Timothy Park & John B. Loomis},
  journal      = {Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics},
  year         = {1992},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0899367x00002695},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Comparing Models for Contingent Valuation Surveys: Statistical Efficiency and the Precision of Benefit Estimates

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.62

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.68 × 0.4 = 0.27
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.