IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes

  • Lindhjem, Henrik
  • Navrud, Stale

Internet is quickly becoming the survey mode of choice for stated preference (SP) surveys in environmental economics. However, this choice is being made with relatively little consideration of its potential influence on survey results. This paper reviews the theory and emerging evidence of mode effects in the survey methodology and SP literatures, summarizes the findings, and points out implications for Internet SP practice and research. The SP studies that compare Internet with other modes do generally not find substantial difference. The majority of welfare estimates are equal; or somewhat lower for the Internet surveys. Further, there is no clear evidence of substantially lower quality or validity of Internet responses. However, the degree of experimental control is often low in comparative studies across survey modes, and they often confound measurement and sample composition effects. Internet offers a huge potential for experimentation and innovation in SP research, but when used to derive reliable welfare estimates for policy assessment, issues like representation and nonresponse bias for different Internet panels should receive more attention.

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://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/35633/1/MPRA_paper_35633.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 35633.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 22 Aug 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:35633
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
  4. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
  5. 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.
  6. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
  7. 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.
  8. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
  9. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
  13. Li, Hui & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Berrens, Robert P. & Herron, Kerry G., 2009. "Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: Investigating household willingness-to-pay for energy research and development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 731-742, January.
  14. 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.
  15. Søren Olsen & Thomas Lundhede & Jette Jacobsen & Bo Thorsen, 2011. "Tough and Easy Choices: Testing the Influence of Utility Difference on Stated Certainty-in-Choice in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 491-510, August.
  16. Gabaix, Xavier & Laibson, David Isaac & Moloche, Guillermo & Stephen, Weinberg, 2003. "The allocation of attention: theory and evidence," MPRA Paper 47339, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  17. 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.
  18. Lindberg, Kreg & Johnson, Rebecca L. & Berrens, Robert P., 1997. "Contingent Valuation Of Rural Tourism Development With Tests Of Scope And Mode Stability," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(01), July.
  19. Loureiro, Maria L. & Lotade-Manje, Justus, 2003. "Interviewer Effects On The Valuation Of Goods With Ethical And Environmental Attributes," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22014, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  20. 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.
  21. Peter Boxall & W. L. (Vic) Adamowicz & Amanda Moon, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 503-519, October.
  22. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
  23. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
  24. 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.
  25. STÅLE Navrud & GERALD Pruckner, 1997. "Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, July.
  26. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
  27. 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.
  28. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1628-1637, July.
  29. Lindhjem, Henrik, 2006. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," MPRA Paper 11467, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  30. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
  31. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
  32. 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.
  33. Beilei Cai & Trudy Cameron & Geoffrey Gerdes, 2010. "Distributional Preferences and the Incidence of Costs and Benefits in Climate Change Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 429-458, August.
  34. 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.
  35. Whitehead, John C. & Groothuis, Peter A. & Blomquist, Glenn C., 1993. "Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation : Analysis of a combination phone/mail survey," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 215-220.
  36. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:35633. 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.