Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: A case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements

被引:67
作者
Bateman, I. J.
Cole, M. A. [1 ]
Georgiou, S.
Hadley, D. J.
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Dept Econ, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
[2] Univ E Anglia, Sch Environm Sci, PEDM, Norwich, Norfolk, England
[3] Univ E Anglia, Sch Environm Sci, CSERGE, Norwich, Norfolk, England
基金
英国经济与社会研究理事会;
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.010
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This paper contrasts applications of both the contingent valuation (CV) and contingent ranking (CR) methods as applied to a common issue, the valuation of improvements to the water quality of an urban river (the River Tame, running through the city of Birmingham, UK). Building upon earlier experimental work, the CV design used ensures that respondents are fully aware of all impending valuation tasks prior to undertaking any one of those tasks. Such an approach is directly comparable to the CR design for which full awareness of all options is a pre-requisite. Findings indicate that the CV responses exhibit strong internal consistency with expected relationships observed between values and theoretically expected parameters. External comparisons show that CR valuations are substantially larger than those elicited through CV (with protest votes excluded), and that the response rate for the CR survey is significantly higher than that for the CV survey. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:221 / 231
页数:11
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [1] Alvarez A, 1999, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V42, pS50
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2003, Stata Statistical Software
  • [3] Bateman I.J., 2003, APPL ENV EC GIS APPR
  • [4] Bateman I.J., 1999, Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries
  • [5] Estimating four Hicksian welfare measures for a public good: A contingent valuation investigation
    Bateman, IJ
    Langford, IH
    Munro, A
    Starmer, C
    Sugden, R
    [J]. LAND ECONOMICS, 2000, 76 (03) : 355 - 373
  • [6] Bateman IJ, 2000, J ENVIRON PLANN MAN, V43, P291, DOI DOI 10.1080/09640560010720
  • [7] BATEMAN IJ, 2001, VISIBLE CHOICE SETS, P76
  • [8] ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR ELECTRIC CARS
    BEGGS, S
    CARDELL, S
    HAUSMAN, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS, 1981, 17 (01) : 1 - 19
  • [9] ANALYSIS OF THE RELIABILITY OF PREFERENCE RANKING DATA
    BENAKIVA, M
    MORIKAWA, T
    SHIROISHI, F
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, 1991, 23 (03) : 253 - 268
  • [10] A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation
    Boxall, PC
    Adamowicz, WL
    Swait, J
    Williams, M
    Louviere, J
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 1996, 18 (03) : 243 - 253