IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v53y2010i2p163-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Better than their reputation: enhancing the validity of contingent valuation mail survey results through citizen expert groups

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Ahlheim
  • Benchaphun Ekasingh
  • Oliver Fror
  • Jirawan Kitchaicharoen
  • Andreas Neef
  • Chapika Sangkapitux
  • Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul

Abstract

Although contingent valuation is the dominant technique for the valuation of public projects, especially in the environmental sector, the high costs of contingent valuation surveys prevent the use of this method for the assessment of relatively small projects. The reason for this cost problem is that typically only contingent valuation studies which are based on face-to-face interviews are accepted as leading to valid results. Particularly in countries with high wages, face-to-face surveys are extremely costly considering that for a valid contingent valuation study a minimum of 1000 completed face-to-face interviews is required. This paper tries a rehabilitation of mail surveys as low-budget substitutes for costly face-to-face surveys. Based on an empirical contingent valuation study in Northern Thailand, it is shown that the validity of mail surveys can be improved significantly if so-called Citizen Expert Groups are employed for a thorough survey design.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Fror & Jirawan Kitchaicharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2010. "Better than their reputation: enhancing the validity of contingent valuation mail survey results through citizen expert groups," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(2), pages 163-182.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:53:y:2010:i:2:p:163-182
    DOI: 10.1080/09640560903529196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560903529196
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640560903529196?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Börger, Tobias, 2011. "A direct test of socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews," FZID Discussion Papers 40-2011, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    2. Ahlheim, Michael & Börger, Tobias & Frör, Oliver, 2011. "Respondent incentives in contingent valuation: The role of reciprocity," FZID Discussion Papers 39-2011, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    3. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Tong, Jiang & Jing, Luo & Pelz, Sonna, 2013. "Nonuse values of climate policy: An empirical study in Xinjiang and Beijing," FZID Discussion Papers 67-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    4. Ahlheim, Michael & Börger, Tobias & Frör, Oliver, 2012. "The ecological price of getting rich in a green desert: A contingent valuation study in rural Southwest China," FZID Discussion Papers 55-2012, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    5. Börger, Tobias, 2013. "Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 155-165.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:53:y:2010:i:2:p:163-182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.