This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Role of Participation in CVM Survey Design: Evidence from a Tap Water Improvement Program in Northern Thailand

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Ahlheim, Michael
Fror, Oliver
Sinphurmsukskul, Nopasom
Abstract

In the environmental economics literature results from contingent valuation mail surveys (MS) are usually considered less reliable than results from face-to-face surveys (FtF). This is mostly due to low response rates and self-selection effects of the respondents. However, MS are much less costly than FtF surveys so that there exists a strong need to make MS more reliable in order to save costs for environmental policy makers. This paper proposes a participatory procedure of survey design in order to improve MS questionnaires. In an empirical study of water quality improvement it is demonstrated that this procedure yields results identical to those of a FtF survey. In contrast to focus groups commonly applied in contingent valuation, we are able to show with our empirical study that much better results can be obtained by conducting group meetings with respondents from a preceding mail survey. Their pre-information of the project and experience with the questionnaire as well as their high motivation to get involved proved to be advantageous for efficient and productive group discussions. Our participatory questionnaire design resulted in a doubling of the response rate and a significant reduction of respondent self-selection. Further, alternative willingness-to-pay elicitation question formats were tested in the context of Thailand. For the dichotomous choice format strong anchoring and "yea"-saying effects were detected so that the use of this format cannot be recommended here. In contrast, the payment card format was found to perform well in this study.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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://purl.umn.edu/25692
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by International Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia with number 25692.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25692

Contact details of provider:
Email:
Web page: http://www.iaae-agecon.org/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).

Related research
Keywords: contingent valuation; water quality improvement; participatory techniques; mail surveys; elicitation question formats; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy; D6; H4; L3; Q25; Q51;

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Ethier, Robert & Poe, Gregory & Schulze, William & Clark, Jeremy, 1997. "A Comparison Of Hypothetical Phone And Mail Contingent Valuation Responses For Green Pricing Electricity Programs," Working Papers 7245, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  4. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  6. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Each page is provided with a technical contact, in case something is not right with the supplied information. See under "publisher info".

This page was last updated on 2009-12-11.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.