Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

2 Department of interdisciplinary economics, Faculty of economics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


Stated preferences methods are a set of economic valuation of environmental goods and services methods which elicit the individual preferences for goods and services using hypothetical market behavior situations. They include contingent valuation (CVM) and choice experiment (CE) methods which share a common theoretical basis in explaining the behavior of choice. Based on neoclassical economic theory, WTP/ WTA estimates derived by the CVM and CE should be the same. However, several recent studies have shown that they differ. The goal of this article is to compare the ability of the CVM and the CE to elicit WTA for conservation and environmental status improvement of Hara forests.
Materials and methods:
To achieve this goal, the WTA of local communities living in the areas adjacent to these forests was evaluated based on data derived from questionnaire surveys. The CE and CVM questionnaires with dichotomous choice format were carefully designed with WTA measure and local people were asked about their preferences for reduction of access to Hara forests under hypothetical scenarios in which they would receive monetary compensation for lessening or forgoing forest utilization. The collected data were analyzed using conditional logit and binary logit models.
Results and discussion:
The results showed that when people are faced with different formats hypothetical questions, show a different behavior. The results of conditional logit model showed that more than half (57.75%) of local respondents tend to receive compensation for increases in environmental risk associated with conservation programs. They prefer recreational opportunities to other two attributes (Hara cutting and fishing) with a compensation of 233940 IRR day-1. The results of binary logit model for CVM survey data showed that 99 percent of respondents willing to accept a reduction in their forest utilization and participate in the protection programs. The mean WTA estimated 331411 IRR/household/day (9942330 IRR/month). Then the welfare values estimated by the two methods were compared. The findings from this comparison showed that welfare value estimated through the CVM (331411 IRR/household/day) is much smaller and approximately one-sixth those obtained by corresponding CE (1959000 IRR/Day). The results also suggest that the CE method has a greater capacity to explain the choice made by consumers. This is because in the CVM only a single attribute, price, is used to describe the interested good and the choice of individuals is affected only by the bid amounts and socioeconomic variables, while in CE, the multiple attributes are used for describing the good and environmental change alternatives which causes the choices of people affected by interaction with the socioeconomic characteristics of respondents. Meanwhile, the CE method is effective for estimating welfare changes at different levels of environmental change, while the CVM method estimates the value of a change in a single level, which is also a high level of protection.
Due to the divergence of the results, it is impossible to say which method is more credible. It can only be acknowledged that the CE method can help decision makers and policymakers to prioritize different aspects of decision-making by gaining useful information about the final WTA of community members for the various attributes that improve on the project or the proposed design.


  1. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F. and Martinsson, P., 2001. Using choice experiments for non- market valuation. Working Papers in Economics. 52, 1-37.
  2. Barrett, C., Stevens, T.H. and Willis, C., 1996. Comparison of CV and Conjoint Analysis in Groundwater Valuation. Herriges, J.(Compiler), Ninth Interim Report, W-133 Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
  3. Baskaran, R., Cullen, R. and Colombo, S., 2010. Testing Different Types of Benefit Transfer in Valuation of Ecosystem Services: New Zealand Winegrowing Case Studies. Ecological Economics. 69(5), 1010–1022.
  4. Bateman, I.J., Carson, C.T., Day, B., Hamemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D. OBE, Sugden, R. and Swanson, J., 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Technique. Edward Elgar Publishing, Massachusetts.
  5. Bennett, J.W. and Adamowicz, W., 2001. Some Fundamentals of Environmental Choice Modelling. In Bennett J. and Blamey R. (Eds.), The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp. 37-69.
  6. Binilkumar, A.S. and Ramanathan, A., 2009. Valuing Wetland Attributes Using Discrete Choice Experiments: A Developing Country Experience. In proceedings 17th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. 24th-27th June, Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.237.
  7. Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., Swait, J., Williams, M. and Louviere, J., 1996. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological economics. 18(3), 243-253.
  8. Christie, M. and Azevedo, D., 2009. Testing the consistency between standard contingent valuation, repeated contingent valuation and choice experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 49, 154–170.
  9. Haltia, E., 2015. Contingent valuation and choice experiment of citizens' willingness to pay for forest conservation in southern Finland. Ph.D. thesis. University of Helsinki, Finland.
  10. Hanemann, W.M., 1984. Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Information with Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 66, 332-341.
  11. Hanley, N. and Barbier, E.B., 2009. Pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Edward Elgar Publishing. USA.
  12. Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R.E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D. and Crabtree, B., 1998. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 49, 1–15.
  13. Hausman, J. and McFadden, D., 1984. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica. Journal of the Econometric Society. 52(5), 1219-1240.
  14. He, J., Dupras, J. and Poder T.G., 2016. The value of wetlands in Quebec: a comparison between contingent valuation and choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy. 6(1), 51-78.
  15. Hynes, S., Campbell, D. and Howley, P., 2011. A choice experiment versus a contingent valuation approach to agri-environmental policy valuation, National University of Ireland. Working paper. Galway.
  16. Jin, J., Wang, Z. and Ran, S. 2006. Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecological Economics. 57(3), 430-441.
  17. Kaffashi, S., Shamsudin, M.N., Radam, A., Rahim, K.A. and Yacob, M.R., 2013. We are willing to pay to support wetland conservation: local users’ perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 20(4), 325-335.
  18. Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M. and Li, C.Z., 2003. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science and Policy. 6, 195–204.
  19. Loomis, J. and Santiago, L., 2013. Economic valuation of beach quality improvements: Comparing incremental attribute values estimated from two stated preference valuation methods. Coastal Management. 41(1), 75-86.
  20. Madureira, L., Rambonilaza, T. and Karpinski, I., 2007. Review of methods and evidence for economic valuation of agricultural non-commodity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broader decisional contexts. Agriculture, ecosystems and Environment. 120(1), 5-20.
  21. Mahieu, P., Andersson, H., Beaumais, O., Crastes, R. and Wolff, F., 2014. Is Choice Experiment becoming more popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health. FAERE Working Paper. University of Nantes, France.
  22. Mangham, L.J., Hanson, K., McPake, B. and Witte, U., 2009. How to do (or not to do) Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy and Planning. 24, 151-158.
  23. Mashayekhi, Z., Danehkar, A., Sharzehi, G.A. and Majed, V., 2014. Choice modelling, a superior approach for economic valuation of environmental goods and services. In Proceedings 8th National Conference on World environment day, 24th-26th June, Tehran, Iran. p.237. (In Persian with English abstract).
  24. Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C. RFF Press.
  25. Mogas, J., Riera, P. and Brey, R., 2009. Combining contingent valuation and choice experiments. A forestry application in Spain. Environmental and Resource Economics. 43(4), 535-551.
  26. Oviedo, J.L. and Caparros, A., 2015. Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain. Journal of Forest Economics. 21(4), 185-204.
  27. Rolfe, J., Bennett, J. and Louviere, J., 2000. Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecological Economics. 35(2), 289-302.
  28. Stevens, T.H., Belkner, R., Dennis, D., Kittredge, D. and Willis, C., 2000. Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecological Economics. 32, 63-74.
  29. Siikamäki, J. and Layton, D.F., 2007. Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 53(1), 122-139.
  30. Swanwick, C., Hanley, N. and Termansen, M., 2007. Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuation. Appendix A. Summary review of the literature on landscape value, perception and preferences. Final Report to DEFRA. London. UK.
  31. Weber, M.A. and Stewart, S., 2009. Public values for river restoration options on the Middle Rio Grande. Restoration Ecology. 17(6), 762-771.