Abstract

The literature on nonmarket valuation includes many examples of stated and revealed preference comparisons. However, comparisons within stated preference methods are sparse. Specifically, the literature provides few examples of pairing both a discrete choice experiment (CE) and a contingent valuation (CV) question within a single survey. This paper presents results of a nonmarket valuation study that employs both methods to elicit public preferences over uncertainty of outcomes and over management strategies. The two methods were employed to examine public support for the proactive management of the invasive pathogen, Cronartium ribicola, that causes the lethal disease white pine blister rust in high-elevation forests in North America. By addressing three related questions, this study finds the following main results: First, both methods suggest the importance of presenting outcome uncertainty to respondents. Second, the results provide no evidence that preferences vary over the means taken for pursuing the given ends, which in this case is long term forest health. Third, the paired inclusion of both methods results in order effects for CE results but not for CV results. Results and discussion provide insight into the most appropriate stated preference approach for informing different types of decisions about the efficient management of public lands.