SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Adamowicz W, Louvieere J, Williams M. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 271292.
  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Learner E, Radner R, Schuman H. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg 58 (10): 46014614.
  • Bateman I, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J. 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques—a manual. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar.
  • Bjørner TB, Hauch J, Jespersen S. 2004. Biodiversitet, sundhed og usikkerhed—en værdisætningsanalyse ved contingent ranking metoden (In Danish with English Abstract). Det Økonomiske Råd. Arbejdspapir 2004:2.
  • Foster V, Mourato S. 2002. Testing for consistency in contingent ranking experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 309328.
  • Garrod G, Willis KG. 1999. Economic valuation of the environment. Methods and case studies. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar.
  • Hald AB, Lund T. 1994. Fire sprøjtefri driftsformer af markens randzoner. Faglig rapport fra DMU, nr. 103.
  • Hald AB. 2002. Quantification of 5 flora and fauna indicators in 6 different scenarios for management of cereal crop margin and field. Paper. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark.
  • Kaergaard N, Frandsen SE, Jørgensen AW, Ørum JE, Jacobsen L-B, Dubgaard A. 2001. The economics of pesticides in Danish agriculture. In: VaardalE, editor. Multifunctionality of agriculture—seminar proceedings. Bergen (NO): University of Bergen, p 135148.
  • Kealy M, Montgomery M, Dovido JF. 1999. Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: Does the nature of the good matter? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19 (3): 244263.
  • Loomis JB. 2000. Effects of gender and parental status on the economic valuation of increasing wetlands, reducing wildlife contamination, and increasing salmon populations. Society & Natural Resources 13: 114.
  • Macmillan DG, Duff E, Elston DA. 2001. Modeling the nonmarket environmental costs and benefits of biodiversity projects using contingent valuation data. Environmental and Resource Economics 18: 391410.
  • Nunes PALD, van den Bergh JCJM. 2001. Economic valuation of biodiversity: Sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics 39: 203222.
  • [OECD] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1996. Report of the OECD/FAO workshop on pesticide risk reduction. Uppsala, Sweden, October 16–18, 1995. Paris (FR): Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
  • Potts GR. 1986. The partridge: pesticides, predation, and conservation. London (UK): Collins.
  • Schou JS. 2002. Economic analysis of 5 management types of field margins. Paper. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark.
  • Schou JS, Streibig JC. 1999. Pesticide Taxes in Scandinavia. Pesticide Outlook 10: 127129.
  • Slovic P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19: 689701.
  • Spash C, Hanley N. 1995. Preferences, information, and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics 12: 191208.
  • Sparks P, Shepherd R. 1994. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption—an empirical study. Risk Anal 14: 799806.
  • Willis KG. 1995. Contingent valuation in a policy context: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report and its implications for the use of contingent valuation methods in policy analysis in Britain. In: WillisKG, CorkindaleJG, editors. Environmental valuation: New perspectives. Oxford (UK): Oxford University. p 118143.