Comparing Contingent Valuation, Conjoint Analysis and Decision Panels: An Application to the Valuation of Reduced Damages from Air Pollution in Norway

  • Bente Halvorsen
  • Jon Strand
  • Kjartan Sælensminde
  • Fred Wenstøp
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 465)


We discuss three stated-preference approaches to eliciting willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental goods, namely open-ended contingent valuation (OE-CVM), conjoint analysis (CA) and multi-attribute utility theory applied to decision panels of experts (EDP). We point out that each approach has advantages and disadvantages relative to the others, and that the relation between WTP estimates from the approaches cannot be predicted on prior arguments alone. The three approaches are applied in three different surveys, where we seek valuation of specific damages due to air pollution in Norway. In all cases studied, OE-CVM clearly yields the lowest average WTP estimates, while those from CA and EDP are similar. Possible explanations are offered, based on the principal differences between the approaches and on particular features of the three surveys.


Contingent Valuation Conjoint Analysis Decision Panels Environmental Goods Stated Preference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brookshire, D. S., R.C. Arge, W.D. Schulze, and M.A. Thayer. 1981. Experiments in Valuing Public Goods. Advances in Applied Microeconomics 1:123–172.Google Scholar
  3. Carson, R.T., and R.C. Mitchell. 1995. The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75:1263–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clench-Aas, J., Larssen S., Bartonova A., and Johnsrud M. 1989. Virkninger av luftforurensninger fra veitrafikk på menneskers helse. Resultater fra en undersøkelse i Vålerenga/Gamlebyen-omrádet i Oslo. Oslo: NILU.Google Scholar
  5. Desvouges, W. et al. 1983. A comparison of alternative approaches for estimating recreation and related benefits of water quality improvements. Washington D.C. USEPA.Google Scholar
  6. Desvouges, W. et al. 1992. Using CV to measure non-use damages: An assessment of validity and reliability. Research Triangle Park.Google Scholar
  7. Diamond, P A, and J A Hausman. 1994. Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8:45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greene, W H. 1993.Limdep 7, User’;s Manual. Bellprot, New York: Econometric Software Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Gregory, R, S Lichtenstein, and P Slovic. 1993. Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7:177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halvorsen, B. 1996. Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Surveys. Willingness to Pay for Reduced Health Damage from Air Pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics 8 (4).Google Scholar
  11. Hanemann, W M, and B Kanninen. 1996. The Statistical Analysis of Discrete Response CV Data. Berkeley: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Divison of Agricultural Resources, University of California.Google Scholar
  12. Hausman, J.A., ed. 1993. Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  13. Heiberg, A. B., and K.-G. Hem. 1989. Use of formal methods in evaluating counter-measures to coastal water pollution. A case study of the Kristiansand Fjord, Southern Norway. In Risk Management of Chemicals in the Environment, edited by H. M. Seip and A. B. Heiberg: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hensher, D.A. 1994. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation 21 (2).Google Scholar
  15. Hoehn, J. P., and A. Randall. 1989. A satisfactory benefit-cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14:226–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janssen, R. 1992. Multiobjective decision support for environmental managemen. Doordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D, and J L Knetsch.1992. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanninen, B. 1995. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28:114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kami, R.P., P. Feigin, and A. Breiner. 1991. Multicriterion issues in energy policy making. European Journal of Operations Research 56:30–40.Google Scholar
  20. Kealy, M. J., and R. W. Turner. 1993. A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75:321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keeney, R, and H Raiffa. 1976.Decision with Multiple Objectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  22. Kristrøm, B. 1993. Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 3:63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loomis, J. B. 1990. Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open- ended contingent valuation techniques. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18:78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Louviere, J.J., and D.A. Hensher. 1982. On the design and analysis of simulated or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transportation Reseach Record 890:11–17.Google Scholar
  25. Louviere, J.J., and G.G. Woodworth. 1983. Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregated data. Journal of Marketing Reseach 20:350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mackenzie, J. 1993. A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models. American Journal of Agricultural Economica 75:593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magat, W. A., W. K. Viscusi, and J. Huber. 1988. Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15:395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McFadden, D., and G.K. Leonard. 1993. Issues in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: Methodologies for Data Collection and Analysis. In Contingent Valuation. A Critical assessment., edited by J. A. Hausman.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchel, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1989.Using surveys to value public goods: The Contingent Valuation method. Washington D. C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  30. Roe, B, K J Boyle, and M F Teisl. 1996. Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 (2):145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seller, C., J. P. Chavas, and J. R. Stoll. 1985. Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: a comparison of nonmarket techniques. Land Economics 61:156–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shechter, M. 1991. A comparative Study of Environmental Amenity Valuations. Environmental and Resource Economics 1:129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stam, A, M Kuula, and H Cesar. 1992. Transboundary Air Pollution in Europe. An Interactive Multicriteria Tradeoff Analysis. European Journal of Operations Research 56:249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saelensminde, K, and F Hammer. 1993. Samvalgsanalyse som metode for verdsetting av miljø – Pilotundersøkelse (Conjoint Analysis as a Method of Assessing Environmental Benefits – Pilot Study). In Norwegian with English summary. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics.Google Scholar
  35. Saelensminde, K, and F Hammer. 1994. Verdsetting av miljøgoder ved bruk av samvalgsanalyse – Hovedundersøkelse (Assessing Environmental Benefits by Means of Conjoint Analysis – Main Study). In Norwegian with English summary. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics.Google Scholar
  36. Wenstøp, Fred, and Arne J. Carlsen. 1987. Ranking hydroelectric power projects with Multi Criteria Decision Analysis. Interfaces 18:36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenstøp, Fred, Arne J. Carlsen, Olvar Bergland, and Per Magnus. 1994. Valuation of Environmental Goods with Expert Panels. Sandvika: Norwegian School of Management.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bente Halvorsen
    • 1
  • Jon Strand
    • 2
  • Kjartan Sælensminde
    • 3
  • Fred Wenstøp
    • 4
  1. 1.Central Bureau of StatisticsOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Institute of Transport EconomicsOsloNorway
  4. 4.Norwegian School of ManagementSandvikaNorway

Personalised recommendations