2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00117-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scope and scale insensitivities in a contingent valuation study of risk reductions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A speculation about why this unexpected difference exists could be that the cause of death is important when examining WTP for death risk reductions, as was found by Norinder et al (2001). We might measure some kind of preference for 'individual freedom', compared to further road traffic safety measures that are perceived as limiting freedom of action (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A speculation about why this unexpected difference exists could be that the cause of death is important when examining WTP for death risk reductions, as was found by Norinder et al (2001). We might measure some kind of preference for 'individual freedom', compared to further road traffic safety measures that are perceived as limiting freedom of action (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using two CV studies from Sweden, Norinder, Hjalte and Persson (2001) find that when the respondents have a reference point, i.e., when the same respondent valuesseveral sizes of risk reductions, WTP is internally sensitive to scope. Preference uncertainty can give rise to hypothetical and scale biases.…”
Section: Size Of Risk Reductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the programme is described vaguely it is to be expected, therefore, that WTP responses will be vague, and thus, for example, insensitive to the scope of the programme offered [11,12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%