¥ The contingent choice method can be used
to value the outcomes of an action as a whole, as
well as the various attributes or effects of the action.
¥The method
allows respondents to think in terms of tradeoffs, which may be easier than directly
expressing dollar values. The tradeoff process may encourage respondent introspection
and make it easier to check for consistency of responses. In addition, respondents
may be able to give more meaningful answers to questions about their behavior
(i.e. they prefer one alternative over another), than to questions that ask
them directly
about the dollar value of a good or service or the value of changes in environmental
quality. Thus, an advantage of this method over
the contingent valuation method is
that it does not ask the respondent to make a tradeoff directly between environmental
quality and money.
¥Respondents
are generally more comfortable providing qualitative rankings or ratings of attribute
bundles that include prices, rather than dollar valuation of the same bundles without
prices, by de-emphasizing price as simply another attribute.
¥Survey
methods may be better at estimating relative values than absolute values. Thus, even if the
absolute dollar values estimated are not precise, the relative values or
priorities elicited by a
contingent choice survey are likely to be valid and useful for policy decisions.
¥The method
minimizes many of the biases that can arise in open-ended contingent valuation
studies where respondents are presented with the unfamiliar and often unrealistic
task of putting prices on non-market amenities.
¥The method
has the potential to reduce problems such as expressions of symbolic values, protest bids,
and some of the other sources of potential bias associated with contingent valuation.