IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v24y2002i1p266-277.html

Surveying Farmers: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Joost M.E. Pennings
  • Scott H. Irwin
  • Darrel L. Good

Abstract

A large percentage of farmers do not respond to mail surveys. To gain insight into why farmers do not respond and how to improve response rates, a three-step research design was developed. First, an initial survey, based on in-person interviews with 15 farmers, was sent to 100 farmers. Second, farmers who did not respond to this mail survey were contacted by phone to investigate the reasons for not responding. Third, based on the information from these nonrespondents, the survey instrument was revised and sent to 3,990 U.S. farmers. Our studies show that the period in which the survey is sent is a crucial factor in the willingness to participate, along with the form and amount of compensation, the sender of the questionnaire, and the perceived length of the questionnaire. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Joost M.E. Pennings & Scott H. Irwin & Darrel L. Good, 2002. "Surveying Farmers: A Case Study," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 266-277.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:24:y:2002:i:1:p:266-277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-9353.00096
    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 below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:revage:v:24:y:2002:i:1:p:266-277. 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: Oxford University Press The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Oxford University Press to update the entry or send us the correct address or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.