（1）Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour
Ecological Economics
Volume 51, Issues 1-2, 1 November 2004, Pages 1-16

URL:doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.04.006


(2)An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data—Certainty dependent payment card intervals
Thomas Broberga, , and Runar Brännlunda, b

URL:doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.09.001


(3)Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?


Matleena Kniivilä

URL:doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.017



(4)Flexible mixture distribution modeling of dichotomous choice contingent valuation with heterogenity
Jorge E. Arañaa, b, , and Carmelo J. Leóna,

URL:doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2004.05.009


(5)A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys

Yu-Lan Chiena, Cliff J. Huangb and Daigee Shawc,

URL:doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2005.01.002


(6)Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys  
Authors: Elisabetta Strazzera a; Riccardo Scarpa b; Pinuccia Calia c; Guy D. Garrod d;Kenneth G. Willis e
Applied Economics, Volume 35, Issue 2 January 2003 , pages 133 - 138
URL:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713759254&db=all


(7) comparison of contingent valuation method and random utility model estimates of the value of avoiding reductions in king mackerel bag limits  
Author: John C. Whitehead a
Applied Economics, Volume 38, Issue 15 August 2006 , pages 1725 - 1735

URL:[url=http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a755287560&]http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a755287560&;db=all[/url]