Exploring divergence between respondent and researcher definitions of the good in contingent valuation studies
Data(s) |
01/01/1999
|
---|---|
Resumo |
<p>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.</p> |
Identificador |
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032897772&partnerID=8YFLogxK |
Idioma(s) |
eng |
Direitos |
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
Fonte |
Chilton , S M & Hutchinson , G 1999 , ' Exploring divergence between respondent and researcher definitions of the good in contingent valuation studies ' Journal of Agricultural Economics , vol 50 , no. 1 , pp. 1-16 . |
Palavras-Chave | #/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/1100/1101 #Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous) #/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2000/2002 #Economics and Econometrics |
Tipo |
article |