Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

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

Contents:

Author Info

  • 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.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560903529196
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.

Volume (Year): 53 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 163-182

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:53:y:2010:i:2:p:163-182

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20

Order Information:
Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CJEP20

Related research

Keywords: contingent valuation; mail surveys; citizen expert groups; willingness to pay; Thailand; convergent validity;

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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).
  4. 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).
  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.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

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.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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