The DOI matches its Crossref record; 381 of the 381 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies
Open accessAbstract
This article proposes contemporary best-practice recommendations for stated preference (SP) studies used to inform decision making, grounded in the accumulated body of peer-reviewed literature. These recommendations consider the use of SP methods to estimate both use and non-use (passive-use) values, and cover the broad SP domain, including contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. We focus on applications to public goods in the context of the environment and human health but also consider ways in which the proposed recommendations might apply to other common areas of application. The recommendations recognize that SP results may be used and reused (benefit transfers) by governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations, and that all such applications must be considered. The intended result is a set of guidelines for SP studies that is more comprehensive than that of the original National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Blue Ribbon Panel on contingent valuation, is more germane to contemporary applications, and reflects the two decades of research since that time. We also distinguish between practices for which accumulated research is sufficient to support recommendations and those for which greater uncertainty remains. The goal of this article is to raise the quality of SP studies used to support decision making and promote research that will further enhance the practice of these studies worldwide.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Decision, Probability and Utility · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,474
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics
Maddala, G. S. (1983) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511810176 · Cited by 13,240
Witten, I. H. (2008) · Cited by 9,143
Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
Morgan, D. (1997) · doi:10.4135/9781412984287 · Cited by 8,863
A New Approach to Consumer Theory
Lancaster, K. J. (1966) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/259131 · Cited by 8,471
Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation
Train, K. E. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805271 · Cited by 7,784
Journal of Economic Literature
(2019) · AEA Papers and Proceedings · doi:10.1257/pandp.109.633 · Cited by 7,468
A New Approach to Consumer Theory
Lancaster, K. J. (1976) · Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-51565-1_34 · Cited by 6,913
Cited by
Using LLMs for Market Research
Brand, J., Israeli, A., & Ngwe, D. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4395751 · Cited by 190
Valuing Changes in Time Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Whittington, D., & Cook, J. (2019) · Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis · doi:10.1017/bca.2018.21 · Cited by 55
Walsh, S., O'Shea, E., Pierse, T., Kennelly, B., Keogh, F., & Doherty, E. (2020) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112675 · Cited by 47
Hypothetical bias mitigation in representative and convenience samples
Penn, J. M., Petrolia, D. R., & Fannin, J. M. (2023) · Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy · doi:10.1002/aepp.13374 · Cited by 42
Moore, C. C., Corona, J., Griffiths, C., Heberling, M. T., Hewitt, J. A., Keiser, D. A., Kling, C. L., Massey, D. M., Papenfus, M., Phaneuf, D. J., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2120247120 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W. (., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., Tourangeau, R., & Vossler, C. A.
- Venue
- Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 319-405
- ISSN
- 2333-5955 (ISSN-L)
- 2333-5963
- OpenAlex
- W2593137067
- Cited by
- 1,430
- References
- 381
- FWCI
- 201.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/691697
- The paper
- Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W. (., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., Tourangeau, R., & Vossler, C. A. (2017). Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. https://doi.org/10.1086/691697
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.