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

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 transacti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of agricultural economics 1999-01, Vol.50 (1), p.1-16
Main Authors: Chilton, S. M., Hutchinson, W. G.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agricultural economics
Econometrics
Environment
Public goods
Valuation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0021-857X
1477-9552
DOI:10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00791.x