Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health

  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu
  • Henrik Andersson
  • Olivier Beaumais
  • Romain Crastes dit Sourd
  • Stephane Hess
  • François-Charles Wolff
Research Article


Numerous articles dealing with stated preferences are published every year in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health. Hence, it is not easy to find all the relevant articles when performing a benefit transfer, a meta-analysis, or a review of literature. Also, it is not easy to identify trends or common practices in these fields regarding the elicitation method. We have constructed and made available a unique database comprising 1657 choice experiment and/or contingent valuation articles published in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health between 2004 and 2016. We show that the number of choice experiment studies keeps increasing and the single-bounded dichotomous choice format is the most employed question format in contingent valuation studies. We also consider the new nomenclature proposed by Carson and Louviere and we show that the “discrete choice experiment” is more popular than the “matching method,” especially in journals related to agriculture.


Contingent valuation Choice experiment Matching method Incentive compatibility Meta-analysis Benefit transfer Review of literature 

JEL classification

Q18 Q51 I10 



We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors for constructive comments. We are also grateful to an anonymous referee from FAERE on a previous version of the paper. Finally, we would like to thank Jordan Louviere, Gildas Appéré and Muriel Travers for helpful comments.

Funding information

We acknowledge financial support by the European Research Council through the consolidator grant 615596-DECISIONS.

Supplementary material

41130_2017_53_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (1.5 mb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 1.45 mb)


  1. Abrantes, P. A., & Wardman, M. R. (2011). Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: an update. Transport Res A-Pol, 45, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamowicz, W. (2004). What’s it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation. Australian Journal Agricultural Economics, 48, 419–443. Scholar
  3. Adamowicz, W., Dupont, D., Krupnick, A., & Zhang, J. (2011). Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: an analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 61, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alberini A, Kahn JR (2009) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing,Google Scholar
  5. Banzhaf, H. S. (2010). Economics at the fringe: non-market valuation studies and their role in land use plans in the United States. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 592–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman, I., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, J. (2011). The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, J., & Birol, E. (2010). Choice experiments in developing countries: implementation, challenges and policy implications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett, R., & Balcombe, K. (2012). Farmers’ willingness to pay for a tuberculosis cattle vaccine. J Agr Econ, 63, 408–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bijlenga, D., Bonsel, G. J., & Birnie, E. (2011). Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes. Health Economics, 20, 1392–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birol, E., & Koundouri, P. (2008). Choice experiments informing environmental policy: a European perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bliemer, M. C., & Rose, J. M. (2010). Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations. Transport Res B-Meth, 44, 720–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., & Lampi, E. (2010). Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden’s environmental quality objectives. Environmental and Resource Economics, 47, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carson, R. (2012). Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Carson, R., & Czajkowski, M. (2014). The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Carson, R. T., & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carson, R. T., & Louviere, J. L. (2011). A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics, 79, 539–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christie, M., & Azevedo, C. D. (2009). Testing the consistency between standard contingent valuation, repeated contingent valuation and choice experiments. Journal Agricultural Economics, 60, 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark, M. D., Determann, D., Petrou, S., Moro, D., & de Bekker-Grob, E. W. (2014). Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics, 32, 883–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crastes, R., & Mahieu, P.-A. (2014). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: a meta-analysis application exploring the determinants of the time for publication acceptance. Economic Bulletin, 34, 1575–1599.Google Scholar
  21. de Bekker-Grob, E. W., Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2012). Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Economics, 21, 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fiebig, D. G., Keane, M. P., Louviere, J., & Wasi, N. (2010). The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Market Science, 29, 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., & Wright, R. E. (2001). Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison, M., Rigby, D., Vass, C., Flynn, T., Louviere, J., & Payne, K. (2014). Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature. Patient, 7, 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hensher, D., Beck, M., & Rose, J. (2011). Accounting for preference and scale heterogeneity in establishing whether it matters who is interviewed to reveal household automobile purchase preferences. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: a primer. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hess, S., & Daly, A. (2014). Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hess, S., & Giergiczny, M. (2015). Intra-respondent heterogeneity in a stated choice survey on wetland conservation in Belarus: first steps towards creating a link with uncertainty in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 60, 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hess, S., & Rose, J. M. (2009). Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently? Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hole, A. R. (2007) Estimating mixed logit models using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata Journal, 7, 388–401.Google Scholar
  31. Hynes, S., Campbell, D., & Howley, P. (2011). A holistic vs. an attribute-based approach to agri-environmental policy valuation: do welfare estimates differ? Journal Agricultural Economics, 62, 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnston, R. J., et al. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4, 319–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., & Mermet, L. (2013). Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. Journal Environmental Management, 119, 208–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindhjem, H. (2007). 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. Journal Forest Economics, 12, 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Braathen, N. A., & Biausque, V. (2011). Valuing mortality risk reductions from environmental, transport, and health policies: a global meta-analysis of stated preference studies. Risk Analysis, 31, 1381–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Louviere, J., Hensher, D., & Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cheltenham: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Carson, R. T. (2010). Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal Choice Modelling, 3, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Louviere, J. J., Street, D., Burgess, L., Wasi, N., Islam, T., & Marley, A. A. (2008). Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. Journal Choice Modelling, 1, 128–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mahieu, P.-A., Crastes, R., Kriström, B., & Riera, P. (2015). Non-market valuation in France. An overview of the research activity. Revue Econ Pol, 125, 171–196.Google Scholar
  40. McNair, B. J., Bennett, J., & Hensher, D. A. (2011). A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meyerhoff, J., & Liebe, U. (2008). Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ? Environmental and Resource Economics, 39, 433–446. Scholar
  42. Meyerhoff, J., Mørkbak, M. R., & Olsen, S. B. (2014). A meta-study investigating the sources of protest behaviour in stated preference surveys. Environmental and Resource Economics, 58, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murphy, J. J., Allen, P. G., Stevens, T. H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Özdemir, S., & Johnson, F. R. (2013). Estimating willingness to pay: do health and environmental researchers have different methodological standards? Applied Economics, 45, 2215–2229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (2007) Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care vol 11. Springer Science & Business Media,Google Scholar
  46. Ryan, M., & Watson, V. (2009). Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Economics, 18, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sach, T., Smith, R., & Whynes, D. (2007). A ‘league table’ of contingent valuation results for pharmaceutical interventions. PharmacoEconomics, 25, 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scarpa, R., & Rose, J. M. (2008). Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Australian Journal Agricultural Resource Economics, 52, 253–282. Scholar
  49. Smith, V. K. (2000). JEEM and non-market valuation: 1974–1998. Journal Environmental Economics Management, 39, 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The indifference function. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Train K, Weeks M (2005) Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  52. Whitehead JC (2011) Contingent valuation versus choice experiment: 1989–2010 Blog posted on June 17, 2011.Google Scholar
  53. Whitty, J. A., Lancsar, E., Rixon, K., Golenko, X., & Ratcliffe, J. (2014). A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient, 7, 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu
    • 1
  • Henrik Andersson
    • 2
  • Olivier Beaumais
    • 3
    • 4
  • Romain Crastes dit Sourd
    • 5
  • Stephane Hess
    • 5
  • François-Charles Wolff
    • 1
    • 6
  1. 1.LEMNAUniversity of NantesNantes Cedex 3France
  2. 2.Toulouse School of Economics, University of Toulouse CapitoleToulouseFrance
  3. 3.LISAUniversity of Corsica Pasquale PaoliCorteFrance
  4. 4.University of Rouen NormandyRouenFrance
  5. 5.Institute for Transport Studies & Choice Modelling CentreUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  6. 6.INEDParisFrance

Personalised recommendations