Does mode matter? A comparison of telephone, mail, and in-person treatments in contingent valuation surveys

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 90, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 3528-3533

  Maguire, Kelly B ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Hurdle model; Survey mode

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; TELEPHONE SETS;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DECISION-MAKING PROCESS; HURDLE MODEL; IMPACT BEHAVIOR; MODE EFFECTS; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; SURVEY MODES; TELEPHONE SURVEY; VALUATION SURVEYS;

DECISION MAKING;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DECISION MAKING; NUMERICAL MODEL; SURVEY; TELEPHONE NETWORK;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; INCOME; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVIEW; RESEARCH; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TELEPHONE;

DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; INTERNET; POSTAL SERVICE; TELEPHONE;

EID: 69249203542     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.005     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Alberini A., and Kahn R. Handbook on Contingent Valuation (2006), Edward Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom
2. Bohara A.K., McKee M., Berrens R.P., Jenkins-Smith H., Silva C.L., and Brookshire D.S. Effects of total cost and group-size information on willingness to pay responses: open ended vs. dichotomous choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35 2 (1998) 142-163
3. Brown K.M., and Taylor L.O. Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 43 (2000) 127-139
4. Cummings R.G., Brookshire D.S., and Schulze W.D. Valuing Environmental Goods: an Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method (1986), Rowman and Allenheld, Totowa, NJ
5. Diamond P.A., and Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 4 (1994) 45-64
6. Dillman D.A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: the Total Design Method (1978), John Wiley and Sons, New York
7. Ethier R.G., Poe G.L., Schulze W.D., and Clark J. A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Economics 76 1 (2000) 54-67
8. Fowler Jr. F.J., Gallagher P.M., and Nederend S. Comparing telephone and mail responses to the CAHPS survey instrument. Medical Care 37 3 (1998) MS41-MS49
9. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis. second ed. (1990), Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey
10. Hanemann W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 4 (1994) 45-64
11. Hanley N.D. Valuing rural recreation benefits: an empirical comparison of two approaches. Journal of Agricultural Economics 40 3 (1989) 361-374
12. Leggett C.G., Kleckner N.S., Boyle K.J., Duffield J.W., and Mitchell R.C. Social desirability bias in contingent valuation administered through in-person interviews. Land Economics 79 4 (2003) 561-575
13. Lindberg K., Johnson R.L., and Berrens R.P. Contingent valuation of rural tourism development with tests of scope and mode stability. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22 1 (1997) 44-60
14. Loomis J., and King M. Comparison of mail and telephone-mail contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Management 41 4 (1994) 309-324
15. Macmillan D.C., Philip L., Hanley N., and Alvarez-Farizo B. Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches. Ecological Economics 43 1 (2002) 49-59
16. Mannesto G., and Loomis J.B. Evaluation of mail and in-person contingent value surveys: results of a study of recreational boaters. Journal of Environmental Management 32 (1991) 177-190
17. Midanik L.T., Greenfield T.K., and Rogers J.D. Reports of alcohol-related harm: telephone versus face-to-face interviews. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (January) (2001) 74-78
18. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method (1989), RFF Press, Washington, DC
19. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Contingent Valuation (NOAA). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, January 11, 1993. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (1995), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD
20. Portney P.R. The contingent valuation debate: why should economists care?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 4 (1994) 45-64
21. Rogers T.A. Interviews by telephone and in person: quality of responses and field performance. In: Singer E., and Presser S. (Eds). Survey Research Methods: a Reader (1989), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
22. Schulze W., McClelland G., Waldman D., and Lazo J. Sources of bias in contingent valuation. In: Bjornstad D.J., and Kahn J.R. (Eds). The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs (1996), Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, UK
23. Whitaker D., Vaske J.J., Donnelly M.P., and DeRuiter D.S. Mail versus telephone surveys: potential biases in expenditure and willingness-to-pay data. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 16 3 (1998) 15-30
24. Whitehead J.C. Environmental interest group behavior and self-selection bias in contingent valuation mail surveys. Growth and Change 22 (1991) 10-21
25. Wiseman F. Methodological bias in public opinion surveys. In: Singer E., and Presser S. (Eds). Survey Research Methods: a Reader (1989), University of Chicago Press, Chicago