IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpot/9703001.html

Monetary Incentive Response Effects in Contingent Valuation Mail Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • William J. Wheeler

    (Penn State University)

  • Jeffrey K. Lazo

    (Penn State University)

  • Matthew T. Heberling

    (Penn State University)

  • Ann N. Fisher

    (Penn State University)

  • Donald J. Epp

    (Penn State University)

Abstract

Monetary incentives are one approach for increasing response rates in contingent valuation surveys. We present the results of a case study desgined to assess the effect of incentives on response rates and respondent behavior. We compare response rates and quality of answers for five incentive levels. Including incentives increased the response rate, decreased item non-response rates, but had not effect on stated willingness-to-pay.

Suggested Citation

  • William J. Wheeler & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Matthew T. Heberling & Ann N. Fisher & Donald J. Epp, 1997. "Monetary Incentive Response Effects in Contingent Valuation Mail Surveys," Others 9703001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpot:9703001
    Note: Type of Document - Wordperfect 6.0; prepared on PC Windows; to print on HP; pages: 25 ; figures: none. Funding provided by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cooperative Agreement CR 824369-01. The authors appreciate the comments of Warren Fisher and Jim Shortle on this manuscript. A shorter version of this paper was submitted for presentation at the 1997 NAREA meetings.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/9703/9703001.html
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/9703/9703001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/9703/9703001.ps.gz
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gripp, Sharon I. & Luloff, A.E. & Yonkers, Robert D., 1994. "Reporting Response Rates For Telephone Surveys Used In Agricultural Economics Research," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-7, October.
    2. Gripp, Sharon I. & Luloff, A.E. & Yonkers, Robert D., 1994. "Reporting Response Rates for Telephone Surveys Used In Agricultural Economics Research," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 200-206, October.
    3. Steven F. Edwards & Glen D. Anderson, 1987. "Overlooked Biases in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Some Considerations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(2), pages 168-178.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gripp, Sharon I. & Ford, Stephen A., 1997. "Health Insurance Coverage For Pennsylvania Dairy Farm Managers," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-10, October.
    2. Laughland, Andrew & Musser, Wesley N. & Musser, Lynn M., "undated". "An Experiment On The Reliability Of Contingent Evaluation," 1991 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Manhattan, Kansas 271069, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Ukwueze Ezebuilo & Ogujiuba Kanayo & Adenuga Adeniyi, 2005. "How Useful Is Contingent Valuation Of The Environment To Water Services? Evidence From South East, Nigeria," Econometrics 0512012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Internet CV surveys – a cheap, fast way to get large samples of biased values?," MPRA Paper 11471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    6. Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Douglas Shaw & Shannon R. Ragland & Sally Keefe & John M. (Mac) Callaway, 1996. "Using Distance and Zip Code Census Information For Nonresponse Correction In the Analysis of Mail Survey Data," UCLA Economics Working Papers 751, UCLA Department of Economics.
    7. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaicharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2008. "Better than their reputation - A case for mail surveys in contingent valuation," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 297/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    8. Duffield, John & Butkay, Susan & Allen, Stewart, 1990. "Economic Value of Recreation and Preservation Benefits of Instream Flow," USDA Miscellaneous 396412, United States Department of Agriculture.
    9. Maria Loureiro & Justus Lotade, 2005. "Interviewer Effects on the Valuation of Goods with Ethical and Environmental Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(1), pages 49-72, January.
    10. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
    11. Dietz, Brian, 2001. "An Analysis Of Statistical Errors In Contingent Valuation Surveys," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20462, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Murphy, Cecile & Schertz Willett, Lois, 1991. "Issues in the Development and Marketing of Reduced Chemical Agricultural Products: A Look at Disease-Resistant Apple Cultivars," EB Series 186194, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    13. Judy A. Temple & Susan Porter‐Hudak, 1995. "Preferences For State Tax And Spending Policies: Evidence From Survey Data On The Role Of Income," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 43-58, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Bowker, J. M. & MacDonald, H. F., "undated". "An Economic Analysis of Localized Pollution: Rendering Emissions in a Residential Setting," 1992 Annual Meeting, August 9-12, Baltimore, Maryland 271381, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Van Houtven, George & Mansfield, Carol & Phaneuf, Daniel J. & von Haefen, Roger & Milstead, Bryan & Kenney, Melissa A. & Reckhow, Kenneth H., 2014. "Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 40-52.
    17. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    18. T.A. Cameron & D.D. Huppert, 1988. ""Referendum" Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values," UCLA Economics Working Papers 519, UCLA Department of Economics.
    19. Loureiro, Maria L. & Hine, Susan, 2002. "Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, and GMO-Free Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 477-487, December.
    20. Kemp, Simon & Willetts, Karyn, 1995. "Rating the value of government-funded services: Comparison of methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access

    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:wpa:wuwpot:9703001. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: EconWPA The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask EconWPA to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.