Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecanpo/v41y2011i1p83-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Responses from Internet and Paper-Based Collection Methods in more Complex Stated Preference Environmental Valuation Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Jill Windle

    (Centre for Environmental Management, Central Queensland University, Bruce Highway, North Rockhampton, QLD, 4702)

  • John Rolfe

    (Centre for Environmental Management, Central Queensland University, Bruce Highway, North Rockhampton, QLD, 4702)

Abstract
Internet surveys are becoming an increasing popular survey collection method because collection times are quicker and survey costs are lower than other collection techniques. Many studies have been conducted overseas to compare the effects of survey collection modes with results still remaining inconsistent. Fewer studies have compared collection methods for nonmarket valuation surveys, particularly for the more complex stated preference, choice modelling surveys. In this study, a comparison of internet and paper-based surveys is made to determine if the results for overseas studies can be replicated in Australia. The valuation exercise was to elicit values from Brisbane respondents for future improvements in the environmental condition of the Great Barrier Reef. The results indicate that there were some socio-demographic and attitudinal differences between the two samples and the models developed to explain the influence on choice selection were also significantly different. However, no differences in value estimates were found in the final results; household willingness to pay for an improvement in the condition of the GBR was equivalent across collection methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2011. "Comparing Responses from Internet and Paper-Based Collection Methods in more Complex Stated Preference Environmental Valuation Surveys," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 83-97, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecanpo:v:41:y:2011:i:1:p:83-97
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592611500062
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    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:ecanpo:v:41:y:2011:i:1:p:83-97. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/economic-analysis-and-policy .

    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.