Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stated Preference Questionnaires

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Landscape Economics

  • 652 Accesses

Abstract

Directly asking people their willingness to pay or accept compensation for aesthetic changes is a popular approach to their valuation. A format is often favoured in which respondents are invited to say whether they would or would not pay or accept a stipulated sum. Numerous difficulties arise, through the hypothetical nature of the question, through possible bias in posing it, and through self-interested strategic response. Interviewees may be unprepared to give an answer. Respondents may misunderstand the scope of what is being considered, and giving more information may lead to unwanted valuations’ being included. Putting the question in a voting context may avoid some problems, as may offering choice between mixed environmental/monetary packages. People attempting to act as “good citizens” clouds the meaning of their responses. There remain opposed views on the efficacy of this approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adamowicz, V. (1995). Alternative valuation techniques: A comparison and movement to a synthesis. In K. G. Willis & J. T. Corkindale (Eds.), Environmental valuation: New perspectives (pp. 144–159). Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Areal, F. J., & Macleod, A. (2006). Estimating the economic value of trees at risk from a quarantine disease. In A. G. J. M. Oude Lansink (Ed.), New approaches to the economics of plant health (pp. 119–130). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armatas, C. A., Venn, T. J., & Watson, A. E. (2014). Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States. Ecological Economics, 107, 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Learner, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601–4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, G., Morse-Jones, S., Mourato, S., & Provins, A. (2012). When to take “no” for an answer? Using entreaties to reduce protests in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51, 497–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balistreri, E., Mcclelland, G., Poe, G., & Schulze, W. (2001). Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environmental and Resource Economics, 18, 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R. C., & Heberlein, T. (1979). Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 926–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R. C., & Welsh, M. P. (1993). Existence values in benefit–cost analysis and damage assessment. In W. L. Adamowicz, W. White, & W. E. Phillips (Eds.), Forestry and the environment: Economic perspectives (pp. 135–154). Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, R. K. (1996). Citizens, consumers and contingent valuation: Clarification and the expression of citizen values and issue-opinions. In W. L. Adamowicz, P. C. Boxall, M. K. Luckert, W. E. Phillips, & W. A. White (Eds.), Forestry, Economics and the Environment (pp. 103–133). Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohara, A. K., Kerkvliet, J., & Berrens, R. P. (2001). Addressing negative willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation: A Monte Carlo simulation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, P. (1972). Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Review, 3, 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnieux, F., & Le Goffe, P. (1998). Cost–benefit analysis of landscape restoration: A case study in western France. In S. Dabbert, A. Dubgaard, L. Slangen & M. Whitby (Eds.), The economics of landscape and wildlife conservation (pp. 85–96). Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börger, T. (2013). Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews. Ecological Economics, 87, 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., Bishop, R. C., & Welsh, M. P. (1985). Starting point bias in contingent bidding games. Land Economics, 61, 188–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookshire, D. S., & Coursey, D. L. (1987). Measuring the value of a public good: an empirical comparison of elicitation procedures. American Economic Review, 77, 554–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookshire, D. S., Ives, B. C., & Schulze, W. D. (1976). The valuation of aesthetic preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 3, 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (1995). Weighing goods: Equality, uncertainty and time. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. A., & James, M. D. (1987). Efficient estimation methods for “closed-ended” contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 269–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 181–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Martin, K. M., & Wright, J. L. (1996). Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics, 72, 80–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, P., Singh, B., & Tewari, V. P. (2007). Non-market economic valuation in developing countries: Role of participant observation method in CVM analysis. Journal of Forest Economics, 13, 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J. B. (1989). An economic approach to assessing the value of recreation with special reference to forest areas. Copenhagen: Skovbrugsinstituttet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. von (1947). Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29, 1181–1196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J., Burgess, J., & Harrison, C. M. (2000). ‘I struggled with this money business’: Respondents’ perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 33, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, S., & Hanley, N. (2008). How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Economics, 84, 128–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, J. A., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 46, 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. K. (1963). Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal, 3, 239–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, B., & Prades, J.-L. P. (2010). Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Ayala, A., Hoyos, D., & Mariel, P. (2015). Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention. Journal of Forest Economics, 21, 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, A., Pateman, R., Dyke, A., Cinderby, S., & Jones, G. (2014). Social and cultural values of trees in the context of the threat and management of tree disease. York: Stockholm Environment Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. F., & Anderson, G. D. (1987). Overlooked biases in contingent valuation surveys: Some considerations. Land Economics, 63, 168–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, C. (1992). Aesthetic disillusionment: Environment, ethics, art. Environmental Values, 1, 205–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, D., & Riera, P. (2003). Expansion versus density in Barcelona: A valuation exercise. Urban Studies, 40, 1925–1936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., & Angelstam, P. (2015). Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecological Economics, 119, 8–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, M., & Adland, D. (2011). Interview effects in an environmental valuation telephone survey. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49, 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grammatikopoulou, I., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M., & Soini, K. (2012). Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. (1986). Interpreting measures of economic loss: Evidence from contingent valuation and experimental studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 13, 325–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 1255–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R. E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D., & Crabtree, B. (1998). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W. (2006). Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 125–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasund, K. P., Kataria, M., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2011). Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: A choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54, 31–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation: From dubious to hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helson, H. (1948). Adaptation level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychological Review, 55, 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herriges, J. A., & Shogren, J. F. (1996). Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 112–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoinville, G. (1971). Evaluating community preferences. Environment and Planning A, 3, 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howley, P. (2011). Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72, 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, J. B., Lundhede, T. H., Martinsen, L., Hasler, B., & Thorsen, B. J. (2011). Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects. Ecological Economics, 70, 1170–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Recreation–amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, J., Jiang, C., & Li, L. (2006). The economic valuation of cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation study in Wenling City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J. (2007). Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer. Environmental and Resource Economics, 38, 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jude, S., Jones, A. P., Andrews, J. E., & Bateman, I. J. (2006). Visualisation for participatory coastal zone management: A case study of the Norfolk coast, England. Journal of Coastal Research, 22, 1527–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling, C. L., Phaneuf, D. J., & Zhao, J. (2012). From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneese, A. V. (1984). Measuring the benefits of clean air and water. Washington: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larcom, L. (1931). I learned it in the meadow path. In Anon (Ed.), Songs of Praise (p. 199). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazo, J. K., McClelland, G. H., & Schulze, W. D. (1997). Economic theory and psychology of non-use values. Land Economics, 73, 358–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lienhoop, N., & MacMillan, D. C. (2007). Contingent valuation: Comparing participant performance in group-based approaches and personal interviews. Environmental Values, 16, 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindhjem, H. (2007). 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics, 12, 251–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindhjem, H., & Navrud, S. (2011). Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecological Economics, 70, 1628–1637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A., & Gallet, C. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B. (1988). Contingent valuation using dichotomous choice models. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 46–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, D. (1999). Non-market benefits of restoring native woodlands. In C. S. Roper & A. Park (Eds.), The living forest: Non-market benefits of forestry (pp. 189–195). London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, D., Hanley, N., & Lienhoop, N. (2006). Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine? Ecological Economics, 60, 299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madureira, L., Nunes, L. C., Borges, J. G., & Falcão, A. O. (2011). Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: A Portuguese case study. Journal of Forest Economics, 17, 399–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, K. (2009). Does mode matter? A comparison of telephone, mail, and in-person treatments in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 3528–3533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R., Arvai, J., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2003). Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 46, 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meldrum, J. R., Champ, P. A., & Bond, C. A. (2013). Heterogeneous nonmarket benefits of managing white pine blister rust in high-elevation pine forests. Journal of Forest Economics, 19, 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff, J., Mørkbak, M. R., & Olsen, S. B. (2014). A meta-study investigating the sources of protest behaviour in stated preference surveys. Environmntal and Resource Economics, 58, 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirasgedis, S., Tourkolias, C., Tzovla, E., & Diakoulaki, D. (2014). Valuing the visual impact of windfarms: an application in South Evia, Greece. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 296–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M., & Bergland, O. (2006). Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer. Ecological Economics, 60, 420–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. J., Stevens, T. H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 327–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, S., Park, S., & Shin, H.-C. (2015). Accessing the economic value of night view of bridge using contingent valuation method: The case of South Korea’s Han-River bridge. Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9, 360–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navrud, S., Ready, R. C., Magnussen, K., & Bergland, O. (2008). Valuing the social benefits of avoiding landscape degradation from overhead power transmission lines: Do underground cables pass the benefit–cost test? Landscape Research, 33, 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, A. B., Olsen, S. B., & Lundhede, T. (2007). An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80, 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, S. B., Lundhede, T. H., Jacobsen, J. B., & Thorsen, B. J. (2011). Tough and easy choices: Testing the influence of utility difference on stated certainty-in-choice in choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49, 491–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovaskainen, V., & Kniivilä, M. (2005). Consumer versus citizen preferences: Evidence on the role of question framing. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 49, 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, M. (1971). Can aircraft noise nuisance be measured in money? Oxford Economic Papers, 23, 297–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinchot, G. (1910). The fight for conservation. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponce, R. D., Vásquez, F., Stehr, A., Debels, R., & Orihuela, C. (2011). Estimating the economic value of landscape losses due to flooding by hydropower plants in the Chilean Patagonia. Water Resources Management, 25, 2449–2466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, A. (1711). An essay on criticism. London: W. Lewis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (1970). Social benefit from forestry in the UK. Oxford University, Department of Forestry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (1979). Public preference and the management of recreational congestion. Regional Studies, 13, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (1999). Contingent valuation and retrograde information bias. In A. Park & C. Stewart Roper (Eds.), The living forest (pp. 37–44). London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (2000). Valuation of unpriced products: Contingent valuation, cost–benefit analysis and participatory democracy. Land Use Policy, 17, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (2001). Exact values and vague products? Contingent valuation and passive use value. In T. Sievänen, C. C. Konijnendijk, L. Langner, & K. Nilsson (Eds.), Forest and social services—The role of research (pp. 205–217). Vantaa: Finnish Forest Research Institute Research Paper 815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (2006a). Superficial citizens and sophisticated consumers: What questions do respondents to stated preference surveys really answer? Scandinavian Forest Economics, 41, 285–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (2006b). Buying certification: Pigs in pokes, warm glows, and unexploded bombs. Scandinavian Forest Economics, 41, 265–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (2013). Subjectivity and objectivity in landscape evaluation: An old topic revisited. In C. M. van der Heide & W. J. M. Heijman (Eds.), The Economic Value of Landscapes (pp. 53–76). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (2015). Perception of tree disease mitigation: What are people willing to pay for, and what do they actually get? Scandinavian Forest Economics, 45, 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakotonarivo, O. S., Schaafsma, M., & Hockley, N. (2016). A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods. Journal of Environmental Management, 183, 98–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A. (1994). Contingent valuation: An introduction. Landscape Research, 19(1), 12–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A., Grunewald, O., Johnson, S., Ausness, R., & Pagoulatos, A. (1978). Reclaiming coal surface mines in central Appalachia: A case study of the benefits and costs. Land Economics, 54, 472–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, M. (2006). Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—An empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, R. D., & Chestnut, L. G. (1983). Valuing environmental commodities: Revisited. Land Economics, 59, 404–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (1988). The economy of the earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schläpfer, F., & Hanley, N. (2006). Contingent valuation and collective choice. Kyklos, 59(1), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seip, K., & Strand, J. (1992). Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shogren, J. F. (2006). Valuation in the lab. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sievänen, T., Pouta, E., & Ovaskainen, V. (1992). Problems of measuring recreational value. Scandinavian Forest Economics, 33, 231–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics, 63, 690–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, R. J., & Walsh, R. G. (1985). Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Economics, 61, 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabó, Z. (2011). Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecological Economics, 72, 37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagliafierro, C., Longo, A., Van Eetvelde, V., Antrop, M., & Hutchinson, W. G. (2013). Landscape economic valuation by integrating landscape ecology into landscape economics. Environmental Science and Policy, 32, 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempesta, T., Vecchiato, D., & Girardi, P. (2014). The landscape benefits of the burial of high voltage power lines: A study in rural areas of Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 126, 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyrväinen, L. (2001). Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyrväinen, L., & Väänänen, H. (1998). The economic value of urban forest amenities: An application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veisten, K., & Navrud, S. (2006). Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats. Applied Economics, 38, 735–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbič, M., Slabe-Erker, R., & Klun, M. (2016). Contingent valuation of urban public space: A case study of Ljubljanica riverbanks. Land Use Policy, 56, 58–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vossler, C. A., Doyon, M., & Rondeau, D. (2012). Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(4), 145–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. (1997). Treatment of “Don’t-Know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, K. G., & Garrod, G. D. (1993). Valuing landscape: A contingent value approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 37, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gwynedd, UK

    Colin Price

Authors
  1. Colin Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin Price .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Price, C. (2017). Stated Preference Questionnaires. In: Landscape Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54873-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54873-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54872-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54873-9

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation