Mail versus Telephone Surveys: Potential Biases in Expenditure and Willingness-to-Pay Data
Keywords:Mail surveys, phone surveys, recreation expenditures, willingness to pay, user fees
AbstractEconomic data obtained from recreationists are an increasingly important component of natural resource management and decision making. A major methodological issue is deciding whether to collect this information through mail or telephone survey modes. This paper compares mail and phone surveys for collecting information about Colorado state park visitation, income, annual capital expenditures on outdoor equipment, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) marginal increases in daily/ annual park entrance fees.Previous research comparing mail and telephone surveys suggests the two modes may provide contrasting results because of (l) sample representation issues and (2) context issues. Sample issues can be further distinguished into sample frame or coverage bias(whether certain people in a population are not included in a sample frame because they are unreachable) and sample non-response bias (differences between respondents and non-respondents who were contacted with each survey mode, but refused to answer the survey or items in the survey). Either bias may be partially addressed by weighting responses by sociodemographic variables if those are known for a population.Considerable research has compared mail and phone surveys regarding context issues: the effect of survey type on how people interpret and answer questions. While a variety of effects and biases have been defined, three appear relevant to recreation economic information: social desirability and acquiescence, cognitive demand effects, and response order effects. Based on this research, social desirability effects appear to have the greatest potential to affect willingness-to-pay variables, while cognitive demand effects are more likely to affect recall variables such as expenditures or frequency of visitation.Results show that although the mail survey respondents had slightly higher incomes, the two survey modes provided statistically similar results for park visitation. When income differences were controlled, expenditure differences were also statistically similar. In contrast, mail respondents reported a lower willingness to pay for park entrance fees than phone respondents.These findings suggest greater social desirability influences with the phone survey for the willingness-to-pay variables, as well as greater levels of strategic responses with the mail survey. In contrast, minor differences between modes for expenditure and visitation variables indicate that cognitive demand effects are similar for these survey types. Results imply that choice of survey mode could have effects on willingness-to-pay information (phone surveys will show greater WTP).
Sagamore Publishing LLC (hereinafter the “Copyright Owner”)
Journal Publishing Copyright Agreement for Authors
PLEASE REVIEW OUR POLICIES AND THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT, AND INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS BY CHECKING THE ‘AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS COPYRIGHT NOTICE’ CHECKBOX BELOW.
I understand that by submitting an article to Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, I am granting the copyright to the article submitted for consideration for publication in Journal of Park and Recreation Administration to the Copyright Owner. If after consideration of the Editor of the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, the article is not accepted for publication, all copyright covered under this agreement will be automatically returned to the Author(s).
THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT
Assignment of Copyright
I hereby assign to the Copyright Owner the copyright in the manuscript I am submitting in this online procedure and any tables, illustrations or other material submitted for publication as part of the manuscript in all forms and media (whether now known or later developed), throughout the world, in all languages, for the full term of copyright, effective when the article is accepted for publication.
Reversion of Rights
Articles may sometimes be accepted for publication but later be rejected in the publication process, even in some cases after public posting in “Articles in Press” form, in which case all rights will revert to the Author.
Retention of Rights for Scholarly Purposes
I understand that I retain or am hereby granted the Retained Rights. The Retained Rights include the right to use the Preprint, Accepted Manuscript, and the Published Journal Article for Personal Use and Internal Institutional Use.
All journal material is under a 12 month embargo. Authors who would like to have their articles available as open access should contact Sagamore-Venture for further information.
In the case of the Accepted Manuscript and the Published Journal Article, the Retained Rights exclude Commercial Use, other than use by the author in a subsequent compilation of the author’s works or to extend the Article to book length form or re-use by the author of portions or excerpts in other works.
Published Journal Article: the author may share a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI.
- The Article I have submitted to the journal for review is original, has been written by the stated author(s) and has not been published elsewhere.
- The Article was not submitted for review to another journal while under review by this journal and will not be submitted to any other journal.
- The Article contains no libelous or other unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that violate any personal or proprietary rights of any other person or entity.
- I have obtained written permission from copyright owners for any excerpts from copyrighted works that are included and have credited the sources in the Article.
- If the Article was prepared jointly with other authors, I have informed the co-author(s) of the terms of this Journal Publishing Agreement and that I am signing on their behalf as their agent, and I am authorized to do so.