Exploring Divergence Between Respondent and Researcher Definitions of the Good in Contingent Valuation Studies

S. M. Chilton and W. G. Hutchinson

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1999, vol. 50, issue 1, 1-16

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.

Date: 1999
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00791.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jageco:v:50:y:1999:i:1:p:1-16

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0021-857X

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Agricultural Economics is currently edited by David Harvey

More articles in Journal of Agricultural Economics from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().