Cost???Benefit Analysis, 1996. ,
DOI : 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.71068-3
Access to physician services: does supplemental insurance matter? Evidence from France, Health Economics, vol.13, issue.7, pp.669-687, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1002/hec.879
Microeconometrics Using Stata, 2009. ,
Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence, Environmental and Resource Economics, vol.19, pp.173-210, 2000. ,
DOI : 10.4337/9780857936288
Does ???No??? mean ???No???? A protest methodology, Environmental and Resource Economics, vol.22, issue.3, pp.71-87, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s10640-006-9057-4
Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol.8, issue.4, pp.45-64, 1994. ,
DOI : 10.1257/jep.8.4.45
Demand and supply of emergency help: An economic analysis of Red Cross services, Health Policy, vol.77, issue.3, pp.326-338, 2006. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.08.005
Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol.26, issue.4, pp.43-56, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1257/jep.26.4.43
Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol.5, issue.1, pp.193-206, 1991. ,
DOI : 10.1257/jep.5.1.193
Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol.22, issue.1, pp.57-70, 1992. ,
DOI : 10.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S
Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care, Health Economics, vol.5, issue.2, pp.51-64, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1002/hec.703
The Endowment Effect and Expected Utility, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, vol.47, issue.2, pp.183-197, 2000. ,
DOI : 10.1111/1467-9485.00159
Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method?, Health Economics, vol.6, issue.6, pp.603-612, 1997. ,
DOI : 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199711)6:6<603::AID-HEC285>3.0.CO;2-2
Helicopters, hearts and hips: Using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes, Social Science & Medicine, vol.46, issue.1, pp.1-12, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00129-9
Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches, Health Policy, vol.70, issue.2, pp.217-228, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.03.005
Implicit versus explicit ranking: On inferring ordinal preferences for health care programmes based on differences in willingness-to-pay, Journal of Health Economics, vol.24, issue.5, pp.990-996, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.04.001
Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol.21, issue.1, pp.95-115, 2000. ,
DOI : 10.1023/A:1026573527618
How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol.26, issue.1, pp.88-109, 1994. ,
DOI : 10.1006/jeem.1994.1006
The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations, Journal of Economic Literature, vol.20, pp.529-563, 1982. ,
Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care? New evidence from using a marginal approach, Journal of Health Economics, vol.25, pp.445-460, 2002. ,
Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment, Health Economics, vol.59, issue.8, pp.609-628, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1002/hec.755
Use of out of hours services: a comparison between two organisations, Emergency Medicine Journal, vol.20, issue.2, pp.184-187, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1136/emj.20.2.184