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.

关于非市场估值的文献包括许多陈述和揭示偏好比较的例子。然而，在规定的偏好方法中的比较是稀疏的。具体而言，文献提供了在单个调查中将离散选择实验 (CE) 和或然估值 (CV) 问题配对的几个例子。本文介绍了一项非市场估值研究的结果，该研究采用这两种方法来引发公众对结果不确定性和管理策略的偏好。这两种方法用于检查公众对主动管理侵入性病原体 Cronartium ribicola 的支持，这种病原体在北美高海拔森林中导致致命疾病白松水疱锈病。通过解决三个相关问题，本研究发现以下主要结果：首先，这两种方法都表明向受访者展示结果不确定性的重要性。其次，结果没有提供证据表明偏好因追求给定目标而采取的手段不同，在这种情况下是长期森林健康。第三，两种方法的配对包含会导致 CE 结果的顺序效应，但不会导致 CV 结果。结果和讨论提供了对最合适的陈述偏好方法的见解，用于为有关公共土地有效管理的不同类型的决策提供信息。两种方法的配对包含会导致 CE 结果的顺序效应，但不会导致 CV 结果。结果和讨论提供了对最合适的陈述偏好方法的见解，用于为有关公共土地有效管理的不同类型的决策提供信息。两种方法的配对包含会导致 CE 结果的顺序效应，但不会导致 CV 结果。结果和讨论提供了对最合适的陈述偏好方法的见解，用于为有关公共土地有效管理的不同类型的决策提供信息。