The design of the survey instrument follows, as far as possible, the Total Design Method (TDM) of Dillman (1978) and incorporates recommendations of influential literature such as Mitchell and Carson (1989); Heberlein and Baumgartner (1978); and Bateman et al. (2002). It consists of a cover letter, a survey questionnaire booklet, and two reminders (See Appendix 2.1a to 2.2d). The questionnaire, in booklet form, was produced on high quality white paper in A5 format to make it appear smaller and appealing to respondents. This was also done to convey the seriousness and importance of the research. The layout of the booklet pages was individually designed to avoid blank pages, unnecessary clutter, and ensure that questions fit properly on each without extending to the next page. Question ordering was carefully thought out to provide a logical flow through the document. The combined effect of a logical question ordering
20
Dannevirke area is included in our survey because of its proximity to the site. Some of the residents in this area could benefit from the restoration programme.
and well designed page layout was to encourage respondents to continue filling out the form and reduce unintended omissions.
Heberlein and Baumgartner (1978) contend that lowering the respondents’ costs involved in completing and returning the questionnaire encourages high response rates. These costs may be lowered by providing postage-paid return envelops, designing a questionnaire that is easy to complete within a reasonable time frame, and motivating respondents by increasing the perceived importance of the study and their input.
1. Cover Letter
The cover letter was designed to have four key components.
a. Introduce the survey, explain its purpose, and convince the respondent that it is useful.
b. Convince respondent that his/her response is important to the success of the study
c. Assure the respondent that the questionnaire is easy and will take a short time to complete, responses will be treated confidentially, and their participation will be anonymous.
d. Convey the time frame of the survey (when responses are expected - due date).
The cover letter was printed on Massey University official letterhead to lend weight to the survey; appropriately dated to make it appear important; and correctly addressed (including name and appropriate salutation) and individually signed for personalisation as recommended by Dillman, 1978, and Mitchell and Carson, 1989.
2. Front Cover of Questionnaire Booklet
Respondents are likely to examine the front cover first before any other part of the survey questionnaire. It is important to design the front cover in such a way that it makes good first impression and generates interest. The front cover was designed to consist of:
a. The title of the study
b. A statement conveying the social utility argument
The statement portrays completing the questionnaire as a socially useful activity and makes the respondent feel important and that he is being consulted on an issue that directly or indirectly affects him, his household or his community (Dillman, 1978; Bishop, Heberlein & Kealy, 1983; Mitchell & Carson, 1989). c. Name and address of the study sponsor
This is important to give weight to the survey so that it is taken seriously especially where the researcher is little known or unknown to the majority of respondents. The other advantage of this is that where questionnaires are separated from the return envelope, respondents are still able to return the questionnaire.
d. A reference number
The reference number on the front cover is for mailing and administration of the survey instrument only. This is conveyed to the respondents in the cover letter. The reference number was placed on the top right hand corner where it is clearly visible. Placing it where it is not clearly visible may raise suspicion and reduce the element of trust created by the promise of complete anonymity and confidentiality (Dillman, 1978).
3. Part I: Introduction and background information
This section develops from the social utility argument raised on the front cover. The background and stresses the importance of Pekapeka Swamp to the Hawke’s Bay community and the fact that proper management of the resource is only possible if the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has information on the community’s preferences. A definition of a wetland is given and ecosystem services provided by a fully functional wetland system are listed. Providing respondents with such a list of benefits will assist in the value formulation process and will ensure uniformity in terms of the whole range of wetland benefits being valued. A map, in colour, clearly showing the location of the study site was provided in order to inform those not familiar with the site. The location of the site is important to respondents in terms of establishing which benefits are relevant and how the wetland is likely to impact on them in future.
Instructions on how to complete the questionnaire are given before any questions are posed.
4. Part II: Awareness and use of wetlands in general
This section collects information on awareness of the existence of Pekapeka Swamp prior to this survey. It is expected that respondents with prior knowledge of the existence of the swamp are likely to have visited the swamp, are familiar with its current state, can readily express their views about the problem and its solution, and are therefore more likely to respond immediately. Furthermore, their previous knowledge and possible experience with the site would positively influence their valuation compared to those who have no knowledge and previous experience with the site. Awareness of the existence of Pekapeka Swamp is likely to influence the response time and willingness to pay. The validity of this statement will be tested in the model where “Awareness” will be included as one of the explanatory variables. A qualitative analysis of responses should show the effect of “Awareness” on response time.
The respondent’s recreational utilisation of wetlands is also explored. A list of wetland activities is provided and the respondent is asked to indicate, by a tick, the activities they consider as important; as their main wetland activity; and what their future wetland activities might be. The information provides a profile for the respondent in terms of current and future consumption of recreational services of wetlands. Higher consumption of wetland recreational services may encourage, in the absence of close substitutes, respondents to state higher WTP for the restoration and preservation of the Pekapeka Swamp.
5. Part III: Valuing Pekapeka Swamp
The first part of this section builds on the previous section by providing a list of reasons for valuing existing wetlands. Respondents are asked to indicate, by a tick, the importance of each reason on a five-point scale from “No Opinion” (0) to “Extremely Important” (4). The reasons listed include protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat; providing scenic beauty, commercial income, recreational opportunities, flood control, water purification; and the non-use values such as option, existence and bequest values. Space is provided for respondents to specify other reasons they feel are important.
formulation stage by presenting them with important wetland services and initiating a thought process that highlights the importance of these services to the individual as the respondents ponder over them and try to place each of these on the scale, and (b) to determine whether or not the respondents demonstrate intrinsic value for the environment and non-use values. By rating these services, the respondents are communicating their preferences to the researcher. The way a respondents rates the services provides a profile for the respondent and insight into his willingness to pay for the restoration and preservation of Pekapeka Swamp. For example respondents who rate all or most of the services lowly are likely to have zero or low WTPmax whereas those respondents who rate the services highly are expected to have higher WTPmax values.
The second part of this section tests respondents’ attitude towards environmental protection by presenting them with conflicting land uses for the site – agricultural development versus preservation of ecosystem services, and asking them if they would support an environmental programme that seeks to restore and preserve the site at no direct cost to themselves. Three possible answers “YES”, “NO”, and “NOT SURE”, are provided and the respondents are asked to tick the relevant answer and state their reasons.
The hypothetical or contingent scenario for the valuation of the restoration and preservation of Pekapeka Swamp is then outlined. Respondents are presented with a familiar payment vehicle considered to reduce protest. Three scenarios are presented with the aid of colourful pictures (see Figure 5.3). The ‘Status quo scenario’ shows how the wetland currently looks like and is based on photos that were taken by the researcher at the site in September 2008; ‘Future scenario 1’ depicts how the site would look if the restoration and preservation programme is not voted for and the site is converted to agricultural use; and ‘Future scenario 2’ shows how the site could potentially look if the programme is voted for. All three scenarios are presented in colour to attract attention and generate respondent interest.
Before respondents are presented with the valuation question, their potential use of the restored Pekapeka Swamp is explored. This gives respondents an opportunity to consider and reflect on the potential benefits that they may derive from the restored wetland without the burden of placing a value on these benefits. By the time the
valuation question is posed, it is expected that the individual would have had enough information and considerable forethought on the value of the benefits of the programme.
The valuation question is posed within the contingent scenario with one of the sixteen
bid amounts presented to each respondent. Respondents are reminded, before answering the valuation question: to consider their income and other financial commitments (budget constraint); of the benefits they could derive from the restored site (total value); that alternative sites may exist (substitution); and to discuss their answers amongst the household members (consensus). It is important to remind respondents in this manner to ensure that realistic valuations that conform to the utility theoretic are stated. The valuation question consists of a DC and open-ended (OE) question. OE questions have been used in previous CV surveys of waterfowl hunting (Hammack & Brown, 1974; Bishop & Heberlein, 1979) and wilderness recreation and preservation (Cicchetti & Smith, 1973; Walsh, Loomis & Gillman, 1984)
Four possible answers to the valuation question are provided. The first option provides for a “YES” answer to the DC question and a provision for the respondent to state a maximum annual amount at which they would still support the programme. If the respondent selects this option, the open ended WTP amount is expected to be at least the same or more than the bid offer. A lesser amount would indicate inconsistent valuation or a selection error (i.e. placing a tick in the wrong box). The second option provides for a “NO” answer to the bid offer and a provision to state the highest possible amount, below the bid offered, at which the respondent would support the programme. The third option provides for zero valuation and is structured to identify genuine zeros from protest. The fourth option allows respondents to express “NO OPINION” and select possible reasons for this answer from a suggested list or inset the reason in the space provided.
6. PART IV: Information about the household
This section collects a personal profile for the respondent. Information on socio- economic and demographic characteristics such as age, education, gender, occupation, household income, family size, and ethnicity is collected (Lienhoop & MacMillan, 2007). The question on household income is presented last because it is likely to be the most objectionable. Presenting this question early may result in high non response rates as respondents would stop completing the questionnaire as soon as they get to this question. Information collected under this section will be used to explain the respondents’ WTP.
7. Back Cover of the Questionnaire Booklet
The back cover of the questionnaire booklet was left blank to avoid drawing attention to it. Dillman (1978) advises that questions printed at the back face an increased chance of item non-response as some respondents may over look them. A blank back cover also provides additional space for respondents’ comments.
8. First Reminder
The first reminder in the form of a reminder/thank you postcard was sent to respondents who did not respond by the due date to encourage them to respond and thank those who had already done so. The importance of the respondents’ response to the success of the study was emphasised.
9. Second Reminder
The second reminder was in the form of a letter appealing to respondents to complete the survey questionnaire and mail it as soon as possible. The social utility argument is reiterated and respondents supplied with another copy of the questionnaire in case they had disposed of or misplaced the original one.