Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 228

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques

Boyle, Kevin J., Bishop, Richard C.·1988·American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Abstract

Three commonly used techniques of asking contingent valuation questions are compared: iterative bidding, payment cards, and dichotomous choice. The results reveal that no single contingent valuation technique is neutral in the elicitation of hicksian surplus and each technique has its strengths and weaknesses. The iterative bidding estimates contain a starting point bias, while the payment card and dichotomous choice estimates were influenced by the interviewers soliciting the contingent values. Finally, the analysis of dichotomous choice responses involves unresolved issues that warrant further investigation. On the other hand, dichotomous choice is the easiest technique to administer in a survey setting.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1241972

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 228

Metadata

Authors
Boyle, K. J., & Bishop, R. C.
Venue
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1988-02
Volume
70
Issue
1
Pages
20-28
ISSN
  • 0002-9092 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8276
OpenAlex
W2137166340
Cited by
228
References
0
FWCI
26.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1241972
The paper
Boyle, K. J., & Bishop, R. C. (1988). Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241972

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.