Estrategias para el fortalecimiento y fiabilidad del método de valoración contingente, análisis de la encuesta como herramienta de recolección de información

dc.contributorVargas Osorio, Juan Jose
dc.contributorhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1416-9467
dc.contributorhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tg9vauEAAAAJ&hl=es
dc.contributorhttp://scienti.colciencias.gov.co:8081/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0001402751
dc.creatorPirachican Urrea, Jorge David
dc.creatorMunevar Rodriguez, German Gustavo
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-03T18:41:09Z
dc.date.available2020-08-03T18:41:09Z
dc.date.created2020-08-03T18:41:09Z
dc.date.issued2020-07-19
dc.identifierMunevar, G. G. & Pirachican,J. D. (2020). Estrategias para el fortalecimiento y fiabilidad del método de valoración contingente, análisis de la encuesta como herramienta de recolección de información [Trabajo de grado pregrado de Ingeniería ambiental] Universidad Santo Tomás. Bogotá, Colombia.
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11634/28775
dc.identifierreponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad Santo Tomás
dc.identifierinstname:Universidad Santo Tomás
dc.identifierrepourl:https://repository.usta.edu.co
dc.description.abstractThe main information collection tool that is implemented in the contingent valuation is the traditional survey, which is subject to various criticisms for biases and errors that may interfere with the calculation of the respondents' availability to pay (WTP). This document compiles the main criticisms of the contingent valuation method (CVM) to know the main errors of the application of the method and describes some of the main solutions to them, in addition to mentioning some of the new empirical tools for collecting information from respondents that increase the reliability and certainty of the contingent valuation in non-use values.
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherUniversidad Santo Tomás
dc.publisherPregrado de Ingeniería Ambiental
dc.publisherFacultad de Ingeniería Ambiental
dc.relationAgüero, A. A., Yazlle, L. L., Sauad, J. J., & Carral, M. (2005). Aplicación del método de valoración contingente en la evaluación del sistema de gestión de residuos sólidos domiciliarios en la ciudad de Salta, Argentina.
dc.relationBoyle, K. J. (1989). Commodity specification and the framing of contingent-valuation questions. Land Economics, 65(1), 57-63. http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=259430633
dc.relationBravo-Moncayo, L., Lucio Naranjo, J., Pavón García, I., & Mosquera, R. (2017). Neural based contingent valuation of road traffic noise. Transportation Research Part D, 50, 26-39.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10.020
dc.relationCárdenas, G., Vargas, A., & Díaz, D. (2019). Un no como respuesta: interpretación, tratamiento y análisis en estudios de valoración contingente. Cuadernos de Economía, 38(77), 209 - 236. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324485545
dc.relationCarson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27-42.http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=737234083
dc.relationCollins, A. R., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2007). Protest adjustments in the valuation of watershed restoration using payment card data. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 36(2), 321 - 335. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500007127
dc.relationCummings, R. G. (1998). Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys? Land Economics, 74(2), 203-215. http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=261247468
dc.relationDaniel McFadden. (1994). Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(4), 689-708. doi:10.2307/1243732
dc.relationRevista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica (REVIBEC), 2, (37)- 44. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=2162684
dc.relationAzqueta Oyarzun, D. (1994). Valoración económica de la calidad ambiental. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009179881
dc.relationBassili, J. N., & Fletcher, J. F. (1991). Response - time measurement in survey research: A method for CATI and a new look at nonattitudes. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(3),331.https://search.proquest.com/docview/1296989331
dc.relationBautista, B. A. (2016). Formulación de una herramienta de recolección de información para establecer la disponibilidad a pagar de la explotación de coltán por valoración contingente en el municipio de Cumaribo, Vichada-Colombia.http://hdl.handle.net/10654/15570.
dc.relationBennett, J. W., Morrison, M. D., & Blamey, R. K. (1999). Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 75(1), 126-141. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/uwplandec/v_3a75_3ay_3a1999_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a126-141.htm
dc.relationBerta Martín-López, Carlos Montes, & Javier Benayas. (2008). Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: The meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 624-635.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00921.x
dc.relationBorzykowski, N., Baranzini, A., & Maradan, D. (2018). Scope Effects in Contingent Valuation: Does the Assumed Statistical Distribution of WTP Matter? Ecological Economics, 144, 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.005
dc.relationEdwards, S. F. (1987). Overlooked biases in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 63(2), 168 - 178. http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=25904623X
dc.relationEkstrand, E. R., & Loomis, J. (1998). Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish. Water Resources Research, 34(11), 3149-3155.https://doi.org/10.1029/98WR02164
dc.relationEye-tracking data: New insights on response order effects and other cognitive shortcuts in survey responding. (2008). Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 892-913. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1835551608
dc.relationFraser, I., & Balcombe, K. G. (2009). Dichotomous-choice contingent valuation with 'dont know' responses and misreporting. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 24(7), 1137-1152.http://econpapers.repec.org/article/jaejapmet/v_3a24_3ay_3a2009_3ai_3a7_3ap_3a1137-1152.htm
dc.relationGarzón, L. P. (2013). Revisión del método de valoración contingente: experiencias de la aplicación en áreas protegidas de América Latina y el Caribe. Espacio y Desarrollo, (25), 65.http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/espacioydesarrollo/article/view/10623
dc.relationGordillo, F., Elsasser, P., & Günter, S. (2019). Willingness to pay for forest conservation in ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design. Forest Policy and Economics, 105, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.002
dc.relationGregg, D., & Wheeler, S. A. (2018). How can we value an environmental asset that very few have visited or heard of? lessons learned from applying contingent and inferred valuation in an australian wetlands case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 220, 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.116
dc.relationHanemann, W. M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 19-43. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/aeajecper/v_3a8_3ay_3a1994_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a19-43.htm
dc.relationHausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 43-56.http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=737234148
dc.relationHausman, J. A., & Diamond, P. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45 - 64. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/aeajecper/v_3a8_3ay_3a1994_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a45-64.htm
dc.relationHorowitz, J. K. (1993). A new model of contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(5), 1268. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1296552723
dc.relationJohn M. Heyde. (1995). Is contingent valuation worth the trouble? The University of Chicago Law Review, 62(1), 331-362. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol62/iss1/6
dc.relationLi, T., & Gao, X. (2016). Ecosystem services valuation of lakeside wetland park beside chaohu lake in china. Water, 8(7), 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8070301 Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2009). An inferred valuation method. Land Economics, 85(3), 500 - 514. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27759692
dc.relationMartin Johnson. (2004). Timepieces: Components of survey question response latencies. Political Psychology, 25(5), 679-702. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3792339
dc.relationMyklebust, T. Å, Aagnes, B., & Møller, B. (2016). An empirical comparison of methods for predicting net survival. Cancer Epidemiology, 42, 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2016.04.006
dc.relationBaron, A., & Flórez, R. C. (2012). Implementación de la metodología de valoración contingente para la estimación de la disponibilidad a pagar por las áreas verdes urbanas de Bogotá. https://hdl.handle.net/11634/2627
dc.relationNowell, C. R. (1988). Length-biased sampling in contingent valuation studies. Land Economics, 64(4), 367-371. Retrieved from http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=259373486
dc.relationOerlemans, L. A. G., Chan, K.-Y., & Volschenk, J. (2016). Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 66, 875 – 885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.054
dc.relationPu, S., Shao, Z., Yang, L., Liu, R., Bi, J., & Ma, Z. (2019). How much will the chinese public pay for air pollution mitigation? a nationwide empirical study based on a willingness-to-pay scenario and air purifier costs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 51-60.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.270
dc.relationRiera P., (1994). Manual de valoración contingente. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Fiscales. Ruiz, T., & Bernabé, J. C. (2014). Measuring factors influencing valuation of non motorized improvement measures. Transportation Research Part A, 67, 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.06.008
dc.relationRuiz, T., & Bernabé, J. C. (2014). Measuring factors influencing valuation of non motorized improvement measures. Transportation Research Part A, 67, 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.06.008
dc.relationSkeie, M. A., Lindhjem, H., Skjeflo, S., & Navrud, S. (2019). Smartphone and tablet effects in contingent valuation web surveys – no reason to worry? Ecological Economics, 165,106390.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106390
dc.relationSniderman, P., & Grob, D. B. (1996). Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 377. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1750822343
dc.relationSpash, C. L. (2006). Non - economic motivation for contingent values: Rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Economics, 82(4), 602-622. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.82.4.602
dc.relationDrayer, J., & Shapiro, S. L. (2011). An examination into the factors that influence consumers’ perceptions of value. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 389 – 398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.11.001
dc.relationStevens, T. H. (1997). Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Economics, 73(1), 140-148. http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=260948195
dc.relationSvedsäter, H. (2003). Economic valuation of the environment: How citizens make sense of contingent valuation questions. Land Economics, 79(1), 122-135. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/uwplandec/v_3a79_3ay_3a2003_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a122-135.htm
dc.relationSzabó, Z. (2011). Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecological Economics, 72, 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.025
dc.relationTimothy C. Haab, Matthew G. Interis, Daniel R. Petrolia, & John C. Whitehead. (2013). From hopeless to curious? thoughts on hausman's "dubious to hopeless" critique of contingent valuation. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(4), 593-612. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt029.
dc.relationChamp, P. A., Flores, N. E., Brown, T. C., & Chivers, J. (2002). Contingent Valuation and Incentives. Land Economics, 78(4), 591–604. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3146855
dc.relationVondolia, G. K., Eggert, H., Navrud, S., & Stage, J. (2014). What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(3),253 - 267. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep14953
dc.relationWillis, K. G., & Powe, N. A. (1998). Contingent valuation and real economic commitments: A private good experiment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(5), 611-619. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640569811489
dc.relationZhang, L., Fukuda, H., & Liu, Z. (2019). Households' willingness to pay for green roof for mitigating heat island effects in beijing (china). Building and Environment, 150, 13-20.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.048
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
dc.rightsAbierto (Texto Completo)
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia
dc.titleEstrategias para el fortalecimiento y fiabilidad del método de valoración contingente, análisis de la encuesta como herramienta de recolección de información


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución