Collecting spatial data in an international valuation ... · Features of the survey • Coordinated surveys in Finland, Germany and Latvia • Pre-testing: expert reviews, focus groups,

© Natural Resources Institute Finland© Natural Resources Institute Finland

Eija PoutaHeini Ahtiainen, Christine Bertram, Jürgen Meyerhoff, Kristine Pakalniete, Katrin Rehdanz & Janne Artell

Collecting spatial data in an international valuation survey: experiences from the BONUS BALTICAPP project

© Natural Resources Institute Finland

Background and objectives of BalticApp

• Benefits from marine ecosystem services • Cost-benefit analysis of nutrient abatement under climate

change• Citizen science• EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, marine spatial

planning, ecosystem-based management

2


Two approaches to collect spatial information

A) Internet survey with maps

B) Mobile application

3 21.7.2017


A) Internet survey with maps Features of the survey

• Coordinated surveys in Finland, Germany and Latvia

• Pre-testing: expert reviews, focus groups, pilot

• Representative sample of the population

• Altogether 4800 respondents• Response rates: 15-35%• Valuation methods

– Travel cost method– Contingent behaviour

method– Choice experiment

4


Actors in data collection

5 21.7.2017

Finland, Kantar TNS:

sampling and contact for CAWI

Germany, LightspeedResearch GmbH:

sampling and contactfor CAWI,

some data about the panel

Map-survey company, Mapita: survey platform and data

Latvia, Latvijas FaktiLtd:

sampling and contact for CAWI,

CAPI


Aims for the mapping

• Spatial distribution of recreation

• Travel cost: computational distances and costs

• Contingent behavior: combining measured environmental quality with perceived on site

• Choice experiment: spatial dependencies

6 21.7.2017


Map questions in the survey

7 21.7.2017


ZOOM!

8 21.7.2017

© Natural Resources Institute Finland9 21.7.2017


Comments from the respondents

• FIN: Approximately 20 respondents sent questions while responding the survey and open text box in the end of survey:

• Main problems– Random locations– Double locations

• -> data cleaning, decision by researcher: buffers, country rules, location rules

10 21.7.2017


Home locations, raw data

11 21.7.2017


Recreation sites at the Baltic Sea, raw data

12 21.7.2017


Success in numbers

13 21.7.2017

Home locations FIN GER LAT

Sample size (completed responses) 2048 2005 759

Home locations (all points) 2373 1866 861

Home locations (impossible removed) 2300 1822 825

Home locations (duplicates removed) 1653 1391 712

Success rate 0.81 0.69 0.94


Success in numbers

Recreation sites FIN GER LAT

Sample size (completed responses) 2048 2005 759

Baltic Sea visitors 1563 1232 603

Recreation sites on Baltic (all points) 1542 851 619Recreation sites on Baltic (impossible removed) 1496 776 603Recreation sites on Baltic (duplicates removed) 1106 653 546

Success rate 0.71 0.53 0.91

14 21.7.2017


Problems associate with

• Problems identified by duplicates in the place of recidence– Higher age– Lower income– Male gender– Unemployed and retired people– Non-users

15 21.7.2017


Lessons learnt

• Focus group and interview testing for the mapping tool needed• International map survey is technically demanding: aim to as

local scale as possible• Create possibilities for double-checking locations• Aim to find a survey company that

– has a respondent panel– experience in choice experiments and other demanding

survey questions– develops actively flexible mapping tools

16 21.7.2017


B) Mobile application Open-source application to collect data on the environment and visited places

Aims:• Information for travel cost studies on locations

• Spatially explicit• Words, feelings, photos

• Panel on Baltic Sea visitors (survey contacts)

• To provide a communication platform for • Citizen-to-citizen

(timely environmental information)• Authorities-to-citizens(-to-authorities)

(e.g. the bathing water directive)• Citizen-to-research(-to-citizen)

(citizen reports, surveys, env. Information)


Challenges related to app building

• Gathering interest– The tool is not enough

Marketable purpose + the marketer!

• Technical challenges– Building a tender– App usability (intuitiveness and platform choice)– Bureaucracy and user security

• Budgeting– Asymmetric information – costs vs. possibilities– Project funding vs. continuity

18 21.7.2017

Keep things simple,

very simple

© Natural Resources Institute Finland19 21.7.2017


Thank you!

21.7.201720

© Natural Resources Institute Finland21 21.7.2017Teppo Tutkija

Documents

Collecting spatial data in an international valuation ... · Features of the survey • Coordinated surveys in Finland, Germany and Latvia • Pre-testing: expert reviews, focus groups,