IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v3y2014i2p264-271d36308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Tablet-Based and Paper-Based Survey Data Collection in Conservation Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Craig Leisher

    (Central Science, The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, USA)

Abstract

There is growing use of household surveys by conservation organizations as they seek to measure the social impacts of conservation initiatives, especially in developing countries. Several recent health-sector studies suggest that computer-aided personal interviewing may be a cheaper and faster alternative to the traditional paper-based interviewing. Here, a comparison of The Nature Conservancy-funded tablet computer-based and paper-based household surveys is presented. Because the tablet and paper surveys were not identical except for the data collection tool, the results are suggestive. In the comparison, the cost per completed interview for the tablet-based survey was 74% less than the paper-based survey average, and the average time per interview question for the tablet-based survey was 46% less than the paper-based survey average. The cost saving came primarily from less need for data cleaning and lower enumerator fees. The time saving came primarily from faster data entry. The results suggest that there may be substantial savings in costs and time when using tablets rather than paper for survey data collection in a developing country.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig Leisher, 2014. "A Comparison of Tablet-Based and Paper-Based Survey Data Collection in Conservation Projects," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-8, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:3:y:2014:i:2:p:264-271:d:36308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/3/2/264/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/3/2/264/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen T Garnett & Liana N Joseph & James E M Watson & Kerstin K Zander, 2011. "Investing in Threatened Species Conservation: Does Corruption Outweigh Purchasing Power?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    2. McCrea-Strub, Ashley & Zeller, Dirk & Rashid Sumaila, Ussif & Nelson, Jay & Balmford, Andrew & Pauly, Daniel, 2011. "Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-9, January.
    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. Bertheau, Paul, 2020. "Assessing the impact of renewable energy on local development and the Sustainable Development Goals: Insights from a small Philippine island," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    2. Zhang, Hongchao & Groshong, Lisa & Stanis, Sonja Wilhelm & Morgan, Mark, 2021. "Comparing onsite electronic survey distribution methods," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    3. Davis, Jac & Magadzire, Nyasha & Hemerijckx, Lisa-Marie & Maes, Tijs & Durno, Darryn & Kenyana, Nobelusi & Lwasa, Shuaib & Van Rompaey, Anton & Verburg, Peter H. & May, Julian, 2022. "Precision approaches to food insecurity: A spatial analysis of urban hunger and its contextual correlates in an African city," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Johnson, A.F. & Kleiber, D. & Gomese, C. & Sukulu, M. & Saeni-Oeta, J. & Giron-Nava, A. & Cohen, P.J. & McDougall, C., 2021. "Assessing inclusion in community-based resource management: A framework and methodology," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 40982, April.
    5. Djenontin, Ida Nadia S. & Zulu, Leo C. & Richardson, Robert B., 2022. "Smallholder farmers and forest landscape restoration in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Central Malawi," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    6. Tarundeep Singh & Pritam Roy & Limalemla Jamir & Saurav Gupta & Navpreet Kaur & D K Jain & Rajesh Kumar, 2016. "Assessment of Universal Healthcare Coverage in a District of North India: A Rapid Cross-Sectional Survey Using Tablet Computers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-11, June.
    7. Rao, Lakshman Nagraj & Gentile, Elisabetta & Pipon, Dave & Roque, Jude David & Thuy, Vu Thi Thu, 2020. "The impact of computer-assisted personal interviewing on survey duration, quality, and cost: Evidence from the Viet Nam Labor Force Survey," GLO Discussion Paper Series 605, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    8. Baker, K. & Baylis, K. & Bull, G.Q. & Barichello, R., 2019. "Are non-market values important to smallholders' afforestation decisions? A psychometric segmentation and its implications for afforestation programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-13.

    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. Rojas-Nazar, U.A. & Cullen, R. & Gardner, J.P.A. & Bell, J.J., 2015. "Marine reserve establishment and on-going management costs: A case study from New Zealand," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 216-224.
    2. Evan Artis & Noella J Gray & Lisa M Campbell & Rebecca L Gruby & Leslie Acton & Sarah Bess Zigler & Lillian Mitchell, 2020. "Stakeholder perspectives on large-scale marine protected areas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Yunzhou Li & Ming Sun & Chongliang Zhang & Yunlei Zhang & Binduo Xu & Yiping Ren & Yong Chen, 2020. "Evaluating fisheries conservation strategies in the socio-ecological system: A grid-based dynamic model to link spatial conservation prioritization tools with tactical fisheries management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Fitzpatrick, Luke & Parmeter, Christopher F. & Agar, Juan, 2019. "Approaches for visualizing uncertainty in benefit transfer from metaregression," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Jones, Peter JS Dr & De Santo, Elizabeth M, 2016. "Viewpoint – Is the race for remote, very large marine protected areas (VLMPAs) taking us down the wrong track?," MarXiv haqc3, Center for Open Science.
    6. Jun-Ya Liu & Qun-Ji Li & Gary Sigley & Hua Quan, 2021. "How Will the Cost Change after Transformation in Public Nature-Based Attractions? A Framework and Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, June.
    7. Diego Juffe-Bignoli & Thomas M Brooks & Stuart H M Butchart & Richard B Jenkins & Kaia Boe & Michael Hoffmann & Ariadne Angulo & Steve Bachman & Monika Böhm & Neil Brummitt & Kent E Carpenter & Pat J , 2016. "Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-22, August.
    8. Craig Packer & Stephen Polasky, 2018. "Reconciling corruption with conservation triage: Should investments shift from the last best places?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-6, August.
    9. repec:ags:aaea22:335483 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Anke S. K. Frank & Livia Schäffler, 2019. "Identifying Key Knowledge Gaps to Better Protect Biodiversity and Simultaneously Secure Livelihoods in a Priority Conservation Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Levrel, Harold & Jacob, Céline & Bailly, Denis & Charles, Mahe & Guyader, Olivier & Aoubid, Schéhérazade & Bas, Adeline & Cujus, Alexia & Frésard, Marjolaine & Girard, Sophie & Hay, Julien & Laurans, , 2014. "The maintenance costs of marine natural capital: A case study from the initial assessment of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in France," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 37-47.
    12. Abdul Halik & Marco Verweij & Achim Schlüter, 2018. "How Marine Protected Areas Are Governed: A Cultural Theory Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Erin McCreless & Piero Visconti & Josie Carwardine & Chris Wilcox & Robert J Smith, 2013. "Cheap and Nasty? The Potential Perils of Using Management Costs to Identify Global Conservation Priorities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    14. Veronica Relano & Tiffany Mak & Shelumiel Ortiz & Daniel Pauly, 2022. "Stakeholder Perceptions Can Distinguish ‘Paper Parks’ from Marine Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-12, August.
    15. Dahmouni, Ilyass & Sumaila, Rashid U., 2023. "A dynamic game model for no-take marine reserves," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 481(C).
    16. Gormley, Kate S.G. & McWhinnie, Lauren H. & Porter, Joanne S. & Hull, Angela D. & Fernandes, Teresa F. & Sanderson, William G., 2014. "Can management effort be predicted for marine protected areas? New considerations for network design," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 138-146.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:3:y:2014:i:2:p:264-271:d:36308. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.