IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v55y2022ics221204162200016x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A tale of two samples: Understanding WTP differences in the age of social media

Author

Listed:
  • Kolstoe, Sonja
  • Naald, Brian Vander
  • Cohan, Alison

Abstract

Social media platforms represent a potentially cost-effective solution to obtaining stated preference data. We use data from a representative sample and a sample of convenience to investigate how willingness to pay (WTP) for increased cultural (recreational) use of an ecologically unique site differs across the two groups. We find mixed evidence of differences in WTP estimates between the two samples depending on the survey attribute. Where differences exist, the most effective selection correction mechanism is the ordered probit with weights. Our results suggest caution about extrapolating results to the general population from samples of conveniences without correcting for sample selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Kolstoe, Sonja & Naald, Brian Vander & Cohan, Alison, 2022. "A tale of two samples: Understanding WTP differences in the age of social media," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:55:y:2022:i:c:s221204162200016x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204162200016X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101420?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    2. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    3. Cameron, Trudy Ann & DeShazo, J.R., 2013. "Demand for health risk reductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 87-109.
    4. Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 584-599, January.
    5. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    6. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    7. Sinclair, Michael & Mayer, Marius & Woltering, Manuel & Ghermandi, Andrea, 2020. "Valuing nature-based recreation using a crowdsourced travel cost method: A comparison to onsite survey data and value transfer," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    8. English, Eric & von Haefen, Roger H. & Herriges, Joseph & Leggett, Christopher & Lupi, Frank & McConnell, Kenneth & Welsh, Michael & Domanski, Adam & Meade, Norman, 2018. "Estimating the value of lost recreation days from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 26-45.
    9. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2017. "Referenda Under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 479-504, July.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Abdulallah S. Abdulrahman, 2017. "Systematic non-response in discrete choice experiments: implications for the valuation of climate risk reductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 246-267, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Kolstoe, Sonja & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2017. "The Non-market Value of Birding Sites and the Marginal Value of Additional Species: Biodiversity in a Random Utility Model of Site Choice by eBird Members," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-12.
    13. Christian A. Vossler & Ewa Zawojska, 2020. "Behavioral Drivers or Economic Incentives? Toward a Better Understanding of Elicitation Effects in Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(2), pages 279-303.
    14. Landry, Craig E. & Shonkwiler, J. Scott & Whitehead, John C., 2020. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Existence Values with recreation demand and contingent valuation data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    15. Interis, Matthew & Petrolia, Daniel, 2014. "The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary- and Multinomial-Choice Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-16.
    16. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    17. Michela Faccioli & Laure Kuhfuss & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2019. "Stated Preferences for Conservation Policies Under Uncertainty: Insights on the Effect of Individuals’ Risk Attitudes in the Environmental Domain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 627-659, June.
    18. Kolstoe, Sonja & Cameron, Trudy Ann & Wilsey, Chad, 2018. "Climate, Land Cover, and Bird Populations: Differential Impacts on the Future Welfare of Birders across the Pacific Northwest," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(2), pages 272-310, August.
    19. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    21. Vossler, Christian A. & Holladay, J. Scott, 2018. "Alternative value elicitation formats in contingent valuation: Mechanism design and convergent validity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 133-145.
    22. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    23. Ghermandi, Andrea, 2018. "Integrating social media analysis and revealed preference methods to value the recreation services of ecologically engineered wetlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 351-357.
    24. Skeie, Magnus Aa. & Lindhjem, Henrik & Skjeflo, Sofie & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Smartphone and tablet effects in contingent valuation web surveys – No reason to worry?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    25. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2017. "Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 258-268.
    26. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    27. Keeler, Bonnie L. & Wood, Spencer A. & Polasky, Stephen & Kling, Catherine L. & Filstrup, Christopher T. & Downing, John A., 2015. "Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes," ISU General Staff Papers 201501290800001557, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    28. John Loomis & Leslie Richardson & Chris Huber & Jeffrey Skibins & Ryan Sharp, 2018. "A method to value nature-related webcam viewing: the value of virtual use with application to brown bear webcam viewing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 452-462, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kolstoe, Sonja H. & Kline, Jeffrey D. & Lohr, Luanne, 2022. "Economic Approaches for Managing Migratory Bird Habitat Across Multi-Owner Landscapes," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(1), May.

    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. Tharaka A. Jayalath & Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Marcus Becker, 2023. "Biodiversity Benefits of Birdwatching Using Citizen Science Data and Individualized Recreational Demand Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(1), pages 83-107, October.
    2. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    3. Zawojska, Ewa & Gastineau, Pascal & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Cheze, Benoit & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Measuring policy consequentiality perceptions in stated preference surveys," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313977, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zawojska, Ewa & Meade, Norman & da Motta, Ronaldo Seroa & Welsh, Mike & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2024. "On the inference about a willingness-to-pay distribution using contingent valuation data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    6. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Aanesen, Margrethe & Navrud, Ståle, 2016. "Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 50-61.
    7. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    8. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    9. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    10. Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2023. "How consequential is policy consequentiality? Evidence from online discrete choice experiment with ornamental plants," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    12. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Ewa Zawojska & Michał Krawczyk, 2022. "Incentivizing stated preference elicitation with choice-matching in the field," Working Papers 2022-04, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    14. Tobias Börger & Tenaw G. Abate & Margrethe Aanesen & Ewa Zawojska, 2021. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Experimental Design Effects on Self-Reported Perceptions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(2), pages 407-424.
    15. Malte Oehlmann & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2017. "Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany – do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2021. "The Effect of Gain-loss Framing on Climate Policy Preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    18. Campbell, Danny & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2018. "The link between response time and preference, variance and processing heterogeneity in stated choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 18-34.
    19. Pengfei Liu & Xiaohui Tian, 2021. "Downward Hypothetical Bias in the Willingness to Accept Measure for Private Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1679-1699, October.
    20. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sample selection; Social media; Crowdsourced; RUM; Stated preference;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:eee:ecoser:v:55:y:2022:i:c:s221204162200016x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.