Search

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.010 Byline: I.J. Bateman (a)(b), M.A. Cole (c), S. Georgiou (a)(b), D.J. Hadley (b) Abstract: 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. Author Affiliation: (a) Programme on Environmental Decision Making (PEDM), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK (b) Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK (c) Department of Economics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK Article History: Received 16 September 2003; Accepted 22 June 2005