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