Can cheap panel-based internet surveys substitute costly in-person interviews in CV surveys?
With the current growth in broadband penetration, Internet is likely to be the data collection mode of choice for stated preference research in the not so distant future. However, little is known about how this survey mode may influence data quality and welfare estimates. In a first controlled field experiment to date as part of a national contingent valuation (CV) survey estimating willingness to pay (WTP) for biodiversity protection plans, we assign two groups sampled from the same panel of respondents either to an Internet or in-person (in-house) interview mode. Our design is better able than previous studies to isolate measurement effects from sample composition effects. We find little evidence of social desirability bias in the in-person interview setting or satisficing (shortcutting the response process) in the Internet survey. The share of “don’t knows”, zeros and protest responses to the WTP question with a payment card is very similar between modes. Equality of mean WTP between samples cannot be rejected. Considering equivalence, we can reject that mean WTP from the in-person sample is more than 30% higher. Results are quite encouraging for the use of Internet in CV as stated preferences do not seem to be significantly different or biased compared to in-person interviews.
|Date of creation:||09 Jul 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
- Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Elisabet Rutström, E., 2009.
"Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 498-507, June.
- Elisabet Rutstrom & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau, 2005. "Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00061, The Field Experiments Website.
- Marta-Pedroso, Cristina & Freitas, Helena & Domingos, Tiago, 2007. "Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 388-398, May.
- JÃ¤ckle, Annette & Roberts, Caroline & Lynn, Peter, 2006. "Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing: mode effects on data quality and likely causes: report on phase II of the ESS-Gallup mixed mode methodology project," ISER Working Paper Series 2006-41, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
- Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
- Jayson Lusk & John List & Mariah Ehmke, 2008.
"Is hypothetical bias a universal phenomenon? A multinational investigation,"
Artefactual Field Experiments
00041, The Field Experiments Website.
- Mariah D. Ehmke & Jayson L. Lusk & John A. List, 2008. "Is Hypothetical Bias a Universal Phenomenon? A Multinational Investigation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 489-500.
- Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
- Darren Hudson & Lee-Hong Seah & Diane Hite & Tim Haab, 2004. "Telephone presurveys, self-selection, and non-response bias to mail and Internet surveys in economic research," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 237-240.
- Daniel McFadden, 1998.
"Rationality for Economists?,"
98-09-086, Santa Fe Institute.
- H. Spencer Banzhaf & Dallas Burtraw & David Evans & Alan Krupnick, 2006. "Valuation of Natural Resource Improvements in the Adirondacks," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 445-464.
- Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
- Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2004. "Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 331-363, March.
- Dadi Kristofersson & Ståle Navrud, 2005. "Validity Tests of Benefit Transfer – Are We Performing the Wrong Tests?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 279-286, 03.
- Lindhjem, Henrik, 2006.
"20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis,"
11467, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Lindhjem, Henrik, 2007. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 251-277, February.
- Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027 Elsevier.
- Hui Li & R. P. Berrens & A. K. Bohara & H. C. Jenkins-Smith & C. L. Silva & L. Weimer, 2004. "Telephone versus Internet samples for a national advisory referendum: are the underlying stated preferences the same?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 173-176.
- Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & William D. Schulze & Jeremy Clark, 2000.
"Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs,"
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 54-67.
- Ethier, Robert G. & Poe, Gregory L. & Schulze, William D. & 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.
- Carlsson, Fredrik, 2009.
"Design of stated preference surveys: Is there more to learn from behavioral economics?,"
Working Papers in Economics
418, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
- MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
- Mark L. Messonnier & John C. Bergstrom & Christopher M. Cornwell & R. Jeff Teasley & H. Ken Cordell, 2000. "Survey Response-Related Biases in Contingent Valuation: Concepts, Remedies, and Empirical Application to Valuing Aquatic Plant Management," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 438-450.
- Christopher G. Leggett & Naomi S. Kleckner & Kevin J. Boyle & John W. Dufield & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2003. "Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 561-575.
- Judith Covey & Angela Robinson & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2010. "Responsibility, scale and the valuation of rail safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 85-108, February.
- Nele Lienhoop & Douglas C. MacMillan, 2007. "Contingent Valuation: Comparing Participant Performance in Group-Based Approaches and Personal Interviews," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 16(2), pages 209-232, May.
- Li, Hui & Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2005. "Testing for Budget Constraint Effects in a National Advisory Referendum Survey on the Kyoto Protocol," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(02), August.
- Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2009. "Asking for Individual or Household Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(1), pages 11-29, May.
- Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2011. "Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 119-129, January.
- van der Heide, C. Martijn & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & van Ierland, Ekko C. & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2008. "Economic valuation of habitat defragmentation: A study of the Veluwe, the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 205-216, September.
- Bateman, Ian J. & Mawby, James, 2004. "First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 47-55, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:24069. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.