A comparison of the contingent ordering and choice experiment approach for the assessment of non-private functions of the forest


  • Joan Mogas Amorós Universitat Rovira i Virgili
  • Pere Riera Universitat Rovira i Virgili




environmental valuation, contingent ranking, choice experiment, afforestation


This paper presents a comparison between two stated preference methods: the contingent ranking and the choice experiment. An empirical application is included, involving the valuation of the effects that would have a specific program to convert some agricultural land into forest land in Catalonia. The valuation exercise considers a forest recreational function, carbon storage, and erosion protection. The results show some differences between the values derived from the two methods, with the choice experiment values being significantly greater. Moreover, the differences are kept when comparing pairwise observations derived from the choice experiments with simulated pairwise observations derived from the contingent ranking.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Joan Mogas Amorós, Universitat Rovira i Virgili

Dep. d’Economia, Facultat de Ciències Econòmiques i empresarials

Pere Riera, Universitat Rovira i Virgili

Dep. d’Economia, Facultat de Ciències Econòmiques i empresarials


Adamowicz, W.L., Louviere, J.J., y Williams, M.(1994). Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26: 271-292. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1017

Adamowicz, W.L., Boxall, P.C., Williams, M. y Louviere, J.J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80: 65-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180269

Beggs, S., Cardell, S. y Hausman, J.A. (1981). Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics, 16(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(81)90056-7

Ben-Akiva, M. y Lerman, S.R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Boxall, P., Adamowicz, W.L., Williams, M., Swait, J. y Louviere, J.J. (1996). A comparison of stated preference approaches to the measurement of environmental values. Ecological Economics, 18: 243-253.

Chapman, R.G. y Staelin, R. (1982). Exploting rank ordered choice set data within the stocastic utility model. Journal of Marketing Research, 19: 288-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378201900302

Departament de Medi Ambient (1996). Les emissions a l'atmosfera a Catalunya. 1996 Una aproximació quantitativa. Quaderns de medi ambient. Número 5. Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.

Desvousges, W.H., Smith, V.K. y McGivney, M.P. (1983). A comparison of alternative approaches for estimating reaction and related benefits of water quality. EPA-230-05-83-001. Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

Domencich, T. y McFadden, D. (1975). Urban travel demand: a behavioural approach. Amsterdam. North-Holland.

Efron, B. y Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9

Garrod, G.D. y Willis, K.G. (1997). The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study. Ecological Economics, 21: 45- 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00092-4

Garrod, G.D. y Willis, K.G. (1998). Using contingent ranking to estimate the loss of amenity va1ue for inland waterways from public uti1ity service structures. Environmental and Resource Economics, 12: 241-247.

Hahn, G.J. y Shapiro, S.S. (1966). A catalogue and computer programme for design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional experiments. General Electric Research and Development Centre Report Nº 66-C-165, Schenectady, New York.

Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R.E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D. y Crabtree, B. (1998a). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(1): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998.tb01248.x

Hanley, N., Wright, R.E. y Adamowicz, W. (1998b). Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 11(3-4): 413-428. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008287310583

Krinsky, I. y Robb, L.A. (1986). On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68: 715-719. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924536

Lareau, T.J. y Rae, D.A. (1989). Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: an application of contingent ranking technique. Southern Economic Journal, 55(3): 728–742. https://doi.org/10.2307/1059585

Louviere, J.J. y Woodworth, G.G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20: 350-367. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151440

Luce, R.D. (1959). Individual choice behaviour: a theoretical analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Mackenzie, J. (1993). A comparison of contingent preference models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75: 593-603. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243566

Magat, W.A., Viscusi, W.K. y Hurber, J. (1988). Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15: 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(88)90034-4

McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In. P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, New York: Academic Press: 105-142.

Mitchell, R.C. y Carson, R.T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

Morrison, M., Blamey, R.K., Bennett, J.W. y Louviere, J.J. (1996). A comparison of stated preference techniques for estimating environmental values. Research report, 1. School of Economics and Management, University College, University of New South Wales, Canberra.

Mourauto, S. y Foster, V. (1999). Elicitation format and part whole bias: do contingent valuation and contingent ranking give the same result? CSERGE working paper GEC 99-17.

Pearmin, D., Swanson, J., Kroes, E. y Bradley, M. (1991). Stated preference techniques. A guide to practique. Steer Davies Gleave y Hague Consulting Group, Londres.

Poe, G., Welsh, M. y Champ, P. (1997). Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 73: 255-267. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147286

Riera, P. (1995). Valoración de las externalidades de la emisión de gases contaminantes. Efectos en España y otros países Europeos. Instituto Universitario de Estudios Europeos, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Roe, B., Boyle, K. J. y Teisl M.F. (1996). Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31:145-159. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0037

Rolfe, J., Bennett, J y Louviere, J.J. (2000). Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecological Economics, 35: 289-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00201-9

Swait, J., Louviere, J.J. (1993). The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research, 30: 305-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000303

Veall, M.R.y Zimmermann, K.F. (1992). Pseudo-R2 in the ordinal probit model. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 16: 333-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1992.9990094