1[11]Bateman I J, Langford I H, Turner R K,et al. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies[J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 12:161-179.
2[12]Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 585-612.
3[13]Carson R T. Valuation of tropical rainforests: Philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation [J]. Ecological Economics, 1998, 24: 15-29.
4[14]Loomis J B, Kent P, Strange L, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey [J]. Ecological Economics, 2000, 33: 103-117.
5[15]Jorgenson B S, Wilson M A, Heberlein T A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: Attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope [J]. Ecological Economics, 2001, 36(1): 133-148.
6[17]Lovett A, Bateman I J. Economic analysis of environmental preferences: Progress and prospects [J]. Computer, Environment and Urban systems, 2001, 25: 131-139.
7[18]Smith V K. Non-market valuation of environmental resources: An interpretive appraisal [J]. Land Economics, 1993, 69: 1-26.
8[19]Brown T C, Gregory R. Why the WTP-WTA disparity matters [J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 28: 323-335.
9[20]Hanemann W M. The economic theory of WTP and WTA [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.42-96.
10[21]Bishop R C, Heberlein T A. Measuring values of extra-Market goods: Are indirect measures biased? [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1979, 61(5): 926-930.
