Corrigendum to “Valuing Unfamiliar and Complex Environmental Goods: A Comparison of Valuation Workshops and Internet Panel Surveys with Videos” [Ecol. Econ. 129, 2016, 50–61]

Corrigendum to “Valuing Unfamiliar and Complex Environmental Goods: A Comparison of Valuation Workshops and Internet Panel Surveys with Videos” [Ecol. Econ. 129, 2016, 50–61]

Ecological Economics 131 (2017) 586 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleco...

118KB Sizes 0 Downloads 1 Views

Recommend Documents

Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos
•The survey modes perform equally well with regard to sampling.•We find significantly lower WTP estimates in the interne

Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: The state-of-the art and science
The purpose of this special issue of Ecological Economics is to elucidate the state-of-the-art and science of environmen

A comparison of alternative contingent valuation elicitation treatments for the evaluation of complex environmental policy
Attempts to evaluate the economic benefits associated with complex environmental policies, using the contingent valuatio

Does mode matter? A comparison of telephone, mail, and in-person treatments in contingent valuation surveys
The choice of survey mode in contingent valuation research has long been debated in the literature. However, there is li

Valuing environmental quality change on recreational hunting in Korea: A contingent valuation analysis
This article estimates benefits from environmental quality changes for hunting conditions to evaluate alternative resour

A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods
•DCE results were susceptible to small methodological changes in 45% of outcomes.•DCE frequently overvalued goods by 50–

Complex systems and valuation
Ecological and economic systems are undeniably complex. Whereas a goal of delineating ‘ecosystem services’ is to make re

Ecological Economics 131 (2017) 586

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Corrigendum

Corrigendum to “Valuing Unfamiliar and Complex Environmental Goods: A Comparison of Valuation Workshops and Internet Panel Surveys with Videos” [Ecol. Econ. 129, 2016, 50–61] Erlend Dancke Sandorf a,⁎, Margrethe Aanesen a, Ståle Navrud b a b

UiT—The Arctic University of Norway, Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics, P.O. Box 6050, Langnes, 9037 Tromsø, Norway School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432, Ås, Norway

The authors regret to inform that a footnote detailing the inclusion of a treatment in the valuation workshop was not included in the original publication. The footnote should have been listed on page 52 after “Second, after the presentation, respondents filled in the first part of the questionnaire including a quiz over the material covered (La Riviere et al. 2014) [footnote]”. The footnote reads: “In a random treatment in the valuation workshop survey, half of the respondents received their quiz score prior to the choice tasks. Using these data, La Riviere et al (2014) found that high scoring individuals receiving their score had significantly higher WTP for the Size attribute.

DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.008. ⁎ Corresponding author at: UiT—The Arctic University of Norway, Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics, P.O. Box 6050, Langnes, 9037, Tromsø, Norway. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.D. Sandorf).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.008

While this result was obtained under different model assumptions and specifications than the current paper, we cannot fully exclude the possibility that receiving your score might inflate mean WTP in the valuation workshops. To test this, we only looked at untreated respondents and conclude that receiving your score cannot explain difference in WTP between survey modes (results available upon request). However, if such an effect does exist, correcting for it should bring the WTP estimates from the two surveys closer together, and thus strengthen our overall conclusion.” The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.