, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 97–110 | Cite as

Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate contingent valuation research



This is the first article using bibliometrics to study the field of contingent valuation research. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contingent valuation research performance based on all the related articles in SCI and SSCI databases from 1991 to 2005. An indicator named citation per publication (CPP) was presented in this study to assess the impact of article output per year, different countries, institutes, and authors from the worldwide. Publication per institute (PPI) in a country was used to be an indicator to compare institute’s research performance by country. Citation analysis was made to select the most frequently cited articles since publication to 2005 of each year. A citation model was applied to describe the relationship between the cumulative number of citations and article life. The results indicate that with the increase article output per year, the CPP decreased slightly since 1997. The USA produced 55% of all pertinent articles. Institutes from the UK had a higher PPI. The most prolific institutes and authors, and the most frequently cited articles per year were all listed. In addition, a citation model was successfully applied to evaluate performance of each year, and the most frequently cited articles of each year were also compared by the model.


Contingent Valuation Citation Analysis Total Article Citation Model Collaborative Article 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, J. (2005), Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics, 63(3): 567–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E., Radner, R., Schuman, H. (1993), Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58(10): 4601–4614.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, I., Vars, F. E. (2000), Determinants of citations to articles in elite law reviews. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1): 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjornstad, D. J., Kahn, J. R. (1996), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Edward Elgar, Brookfield, USA, pp. 3.Google Scholar
  5. Bradford, S. C. (1953), Documentation (2nd ed.). Croshy Lockwood & Son, London, UK, pp. 154.Google Scholar
  6. Chiu, W. T., Ho, Y. S. (2005), Bibliometric analysis of homeopathy research during the period of 1991 to 2003. Scientometrics, 63(1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chuang, K. Y., Huang, Y. L., Ho, Y. S. (in press), A bibliometric and citation analysis of stroke-related research in Taiwan. Scientometrics.Google Scholar
  8. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1947), Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29(4): 1181–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, R. K. (1963), The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study of the Maine Woods, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  10. Diamond, P.A., Hausman, J.A. (1994), Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 45–64.Google Scholar
  11. Garfield, E. (1972), Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178(4060): 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen, H. B., Henriksen, J. H. (1997), How well does journal ‘impact’ work in the assessment of papers on clinical physiology and nuclear medicine, Clinical Physiology, 17: 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsieh, W. H., Chiu, W. T., Lee, Y. S., Ho, Y. S. (2004), Bibliometric analysis of patent ductus arteriosus treatments. Scientometrics, 60(2): 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Rousseau, R., Russell, J. (2001), The publication-citation matrix and its derived quantities. Chinese Science Bulletin, 46(6): 524–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Wormell, I. (2000), Applying diachronic citation analysis to ongoing research program evaluations. In: B. Cronin, H. B. Atkins (Eds): The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, Information Today, Inc., Medford, New Jersey, USA, pp. 373–387.Google Scholar
  16. Ma, C. B., Stern, D. I. (2006), Environmental and ecological economics: A citation analysis. Ecological Economics, 58(3): 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marx, W., Cardona, M. (2003), The impact of Solid State Communications in view of the ISI citation data. Solid State Communications, 127(5): 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, V. K. (2000), JEEM and non-market valuation: 1974–1998. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39(3): 351–374.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, V. K. (2004), Fifty years of contingent valuation. In: H. Folmer (Ed.): The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2004/2005: A survey of current issues, Edward Elgar, Brookfield, USA, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
  20. Venkatachalam, L. (2004), The contingent valuation method: A review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(1): 89–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang, H. (1997), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: A Stochastic Perspective, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Key Laboratory for Environmental and Urban Sciences, Shenzhen Graduate SchoolPeking UniversityShenzhenP. R. China
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences, College of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringPeking UniversityBeijingP. R. China

Personalised recommendations