Exploring divergence between respondent and researcher definitions of the good in contingent valuation studies

S. M. Chilton, George Hutchinson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-16
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Agricultural Economics
Volume50
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1999

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Economics and Econometrics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Exploring divergence between respondent and researcher definitions of the good in contingent valuation studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this