In this study, welfare measures estimated using two different stated choice methods, the contingent valuation method (CVM) and choice modelling (CM), are compared. The application involves the estimation of non-market values from alternative afforestation programs in the northeast of Spain. The two techniques are found to yield equivalent estimates of welfare change for identical afforestation programs when the fully specified utility functions are used as the basis for the calculations. When elements of the utility functions – for instance the alternative specific constants and the sociodemographic variables - are omitted from the value estimation procedure, significant differences do occur between estimates derived using the two valuation techniques.