14,928 rated or chosen profiles from 933 respondents, in up to 8 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.

One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the poland table. The others are listed under Related tables.

About this table

Description	Choice experiment on forest landscape change in Poland: 933 respondents chose, in each of 8 choice sets, between two forest-management alternatives (forest management share, public access, guided tours, fee) and a status quo.
Reference	De Kruiff, T. (2026). Data (code and survey responses) for paper Value pluralism and the economic valuation of landscape change: Evidence on the suitability of stated preference methods [Data set]. Zenodo.
Licence	CC BY 4.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20538567

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint_2). Choice between two forest-landscape alternatives and a status quo ('neither', option 3, stored without attribute levels, so opt_out = yes) in 8 sets per respondent, Poland sample; attributes are forest management share (0%, 20%, 40% and 50%), access, guided tours and fee (50-500, currency not stated). Level wording is taken from the authors' Apollo script parameter names because the deposit has no codebook, so the meaning of the share and the fee currency are unknown. Task is the design set index (presentation order not documented).

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	933
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	14,928
Tasks per respondent (most)	8
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	4
Tasks with no profile chosen	3,480

Design

Topic	climate energy environment
A profile represents	policy
Country	PL
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice	Which alternative do you prefer: alternative 1, alternative 2 or the status quo? (paraphrase) [choice, opt-out allowed]

Columns

attr_accessattr_feeattr_forest_management_shareattr_tourschoicecov_agecov_gender_codecov_higher_educationcov_urbanidprofiletask

The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):

# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("dekruiff_2026_forests_poland", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("dekruiff_2026_forests_poland", source="conj")

How to cite

@misc{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20538567,
  doi = {10.5281/ZENODO.20538567},
  url = {https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.20538567},
  author = {De Kruiff, Tim},
  title = {Data (code and survey responses) for paper Value pluralism and the economic valuation of landscape change: Evidence on the suitability of stated preference methods},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year = {2026},
  copyright = {Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International}
}

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint_2 v1.4
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/hk97-wv30
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v1.4
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0