IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae06/25692.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Role of Participation in CVM Survey Design: Evidence from a Tap Water Improvement Program in Northern Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Ahlheim, Michael
  • Fror, Oliver
  • Sinphurmsukskul, Nopasom

Abstract

In the environmental economics literature results from contingent valuation mail surveys (MS) are usually considered less reliable than results from face-to-face surveys (FtF). This is mostly due to low response rates and self-selection effects of the respondents. However, MS are much less costly than FtF surveys so that there exists a strong need to make MS more reliable in order to save costs for environmental policy makers. This paper proposes a participatory procedure of survey design in order to improve MS questionnaires. In an empirical study of water quality improvement it is demonstrated that this procedure yields results identical to those of a FtF survey. In contrast to focus groups commonly applied in contingent valuation, we are able to show with our empirical study that much better results can be obtained by conducting group meetings with respondents from a preceding mail survey. Their pre-information of the project and experience with the questionnaire as well as their high motivation to get involved proved to be advantageous for efficient and productive group discussions. Our participatory questionnaire design resulted in a doubling of the response rate and a significant reduction of respondent self-selection. Further, alternative willingness-to-pay elicitation question formats were tested in the context of Thailand. For the dichotomous choice format strong anchoring and "yea"-saying effects were detected so that the use of this format cannot be recommended here. In contrast, the payment card format was found to perform well in this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahlheim, Michael & Fror, Oliver & Sinphurmsukskul, Nopasom, 2006. "The Role of Participation in CVM Survey Design: Evidence from a Tap Water Improvement Program in Northern Thailand," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25692, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25692
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.25692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/25692/files/pp061099.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.25692?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    2. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    3. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    4. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    6. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
    7. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
    8. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July.
    9. Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & William D. Schulze & Jeremy Clark, 2000. "Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 54-67.
    10. Emma J. Frew & David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme, 2003. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay: Comparing Closed-Ended with Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 150-159, March.
    11. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    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. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaincharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2007. "Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 283/2007, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    2. 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.
    3. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    4. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
    6. Frör, Oliver, 2008. "Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence using cognitive psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 570-581, December.
    7. Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop, 2006. "Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 162-173.
    8. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    9. McIntosh, Christopher R. & Shogren, Jason F. & Finnoff, David C., 2010. "Invasive species and delaying the inevitable: Valuation evidence from a national survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 632-640, January.
    10. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. George Van Houtven & John Powers & Amber Jessup & Jui‐Chen Yang, 2006. "Valuing avoided morbidity using meta‐regression analysis: what can health status measures and QALYs tell us about WTP?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 775-795, August.
    14. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Antonia Heinke & Alwin Keil & Nguyen Minh Duc & Pham Van Dinh & Camille Saint-Macary & Manfred Zeller, 2008. "Landslides in mountainous regions of Northern Vietnam: Causes, protection strategies and the assessment of economic losses," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 298/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    15. Ju-Chin Huang & V. Kerry Smith, 1998. "Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 186-202.
    16. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    17. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    18. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    19. Arthur van Soest & Michael Hurd, 2004. "Models for Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Consumption Data," NBER Working Papers 10461, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Carmelo León & Francisco Vázquez-Polo, 1998. "A Bayesian Approach to Double Bounded Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 197-215, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:iaae06:25692. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.