Reference health
Benefit transfer studies: Myths, pragmatism, and idealism
5/5 checkable references clean · checked 2026-08-03
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
22 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 5 checked references that resolve
resolves10.2307/1241209
Recreational Demands for Maintaining Instream Flows: A Contingent Valuation Approach
resolves10.1029/91WR02592
Benefit transfer: Conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies
resolves10.1016/0048-9697(86)90317-7
Assessing the validity of contingent valuation: Three field experiments☆
resolves10.1029/WR023i003p00381
Economics of water allocation to instream uses in a fully appropriated river basin: Evidence from a New Mexico wild river
The 22 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedNatural Resource Economics: Policy Problems and Contemporary Analysis
no DOI — not checkedBishop R. C. K. J.Boyle M. P.Welsh R. M.Baumgartner P. R.Rathbam Glen Canyon Dam releases and downstream recreation: An analysis of user preferences and economic values final reportU.S. Bur. of Reclam. Salt Lake City Utah 1987.
no DOI — not checkedCordell H. K. J. C.Bergstrom D. B. K.English D. K.Klinko C.Overdevest Economic values and impacts of outdoor recreation at western North Carolina lakes under different management alternatives final reportTenn. Valley Auth. N. C. Dep. of Environ. Health and Nat. Resour. Raleigh 1990.
no DOI — not checkedValuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method
no DOI — not checkedDaubert J. R.Young L.Gray Economic benefits from instream flow in a Colorado Mountain streamCompletion Rep. 91Colo. Water Resour. Res. Inst. Colo. State Univ. Fort Collins 1979.
no DOI — not checkedMarket transactions and hypothetical demand data: A comparative study
no DOI — not checkedValuing non‐market recreation goods: An evaluation survey of the literature on the travel cost and contingent valuation methods
no DOI — not checkedValuing outdoor recreational activity: A methodological survey
no DOI — not checkedHenderson J. Corps of engineers regional recreation demand modelW‐133 Regional Project technical committee meetingMonterey Calif.Feb. 1991.
no DOI — not checkedThe economic value of instream flow: Methodology and benefit estimates for optimum flows
no DOI — not checkedUsing Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method
no DOI — not checkedNaughton M. C. W. H.Desvousges Water quality benefits of additional pollution control in the pulp and paper industry final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencycontract 68‐01‐7033Res. Triangle Inst. Research Triangle Park N. C. 1986.
no DOI — not checkedContingent valuation of damage to natural resources: How accurate? How appropriate?
no DOI — not checkedConsumer's surplus in commodity space
no DOI — not checkedScott A. The valuation of game resources: Some theoretical aspectsCan. Fish. Rep. 4Dep. of Fish. of Can. Ottawa Ont.May 1965.
no DOI — not checkedSorg C. F. J. B.Loomis Empirical estimates of amenity forest values: A comparative reviewGen. Tech. Rep. RM‐107Rocky Mountain For. and Range Exp. Stn. U.S. For. Serv. U.S. Dep. of Agric. Fort Collins Colo. 1984.
no DOI — not checkedU.S. Forest Service0 Resource pricing and valuation guidelines for the 1990 RPA program report of the Chiefs' Technical Coordinating Committee on Resource Values for the 1990 RPA Washington D.C.March 1987.
no DOI — not checkedAn empirical application of a model for estimating the recreation value of instream flow
no DOI — not checkedWalsh R. G. D. M.Johnson J. R.McKean Review of outdoor recreation demand studies with nonmarket benefit estimates 1968–1988Tech. Rep. 54Colo. Water Resour. Res. Inst. Colo. State Univ. Fort Collins 1988.
no DOI — not checkedIssues in nonmarket valuation and policy application: A retrospective glance
no DOI — not checkedWard F. A. Optimally managing wild and scenic rivers for instream flow benefitsNational River Recreation SymposiumLa. State Univ.Baton Rouge 1985.
no DOI — not checkedThe travel cost demand model as an environmental policy assessment tool: A review of literature
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. If Crossref’s record marks the work itself
retracted, withdrawn, or removed, the badge says so instead of showing clean. It says nothing
about the quality, findings, or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references
deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-03 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1029/91wr02591"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1029/91wr02591/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1029/91wr02591)