Research Design: Contingent Valuation Method - Essay Example

? Research Design No: Research Design In order to estimate the value of market materials as well as non-market materials, contingent valuation (CV) method is utilized. The method utilizes the respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP), which can precisely evaluate the value of certain market and non-market products. Such goods, which are considered as the non-market environmental goods, have to be researched for the contingent valuation (CV) (Willis 2010). The research process is a bit complicated as it addresses the behaviour of respondents towards the non-market environmental goods and articulated willingness to pay for the goods. The study has three basic objectives that are to alter the standards of the non-market environmental goods and services in terms of both economics and environmental stability, to determine if the policy makers would find the results from the contingent valuation methods would be consistent and acceptable. The third objective is to evaluate the condition that the wildlife enhancement scheme (WES) would enhance the WES worth. The important part is not the topic but it is the research methods that are followed to enhance the cost of Pevensey levels wildlife enhancement scheme. In the essay, the two essays are analyzed to identify the research method. One of the papers emphasizes on the quantitative research approach while the other follows the qualitative research approach. The contingent valuation is been through a criticism in the past few years as it is hard to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP). The degree of sensitivity of the results from the contingent valuation (CV) presents a scenario that will determine the view and attitude of people towards the enhancement policy (Clark Burgess & Harrison 1999). Research Questionnaire Respondents were asked as to estimate the WTP figures. The questions, which involved the willingness to pay (WTP), considered both the environmental and economic factors like the acceptability of WTP and the refusal of proposal both cannot be considered in the similar manner and for what the refusal stand for. Similarly, willingness to pay is sometimes regarded as the willingness to accept. Sometimes, WTP estimates weather the respondent wills to pay or just responds for the moral satisfaction, how the policy-making procedure utilized the benefit estimation. The questionnaire is such designed to provide an information to the respondents in both the papers but the method of interaction utilized in the paper “Benefits of Costs and Wildlife Enhancement Scheme: A Case Study of the Pevensey Levels” written by “K. G. Willis” are not much influencing. The article “I struggled with this money business”: respondents’ perspectives on contingent valuation” written by Judy Clark, Jacquelin Burgess and Carolyn M. Harrison’ utilizes the better interaction and information sharing methods. Before each question it gives an information about the question and the relative taxes and costs that will apply. In this way, the respondents and the interviewer maintain an atmosphere of confidence and reliability (Petterson &Williams 2005). Political views of freedom to ask and freedom to say are well adopted in the research paper. Most of the questions are answered in a more reasonable manner and respondent have tried their best to answer as many question and bid as more as possible but in the other paper, respondents avoided some of the questions and responded some of the questions in an unsatisfactory manner. The utilization of multiples as double the current amount, three times the current amount, four times the current value or one thousand times the current amount made the research more cost efficient as it could be without the utilization of multiple values. These questions have still indefinite and unsatisfactory answers; however, the satisfactory results can be achieved by utilizing a better questionnaire design. A well-researched method can resolve the problem associated with the WTP and CV (Willis 2010). Some people from the society, who responded to the questions and completed the survey have shown a better understanding of the facts and values concerning to WTP figures (Clark Burgess & Harrison 1999). The ideas of the respondents in determining the WTP figures have the great influence on the significance of the WTP figures. The matter is the correct evaluation of the goods. The design process associates a major worry to prevent embedding and to maintain the respondent’s budget as factual as possible depending upon the taxation position a respondent holds. Pevensey levels wild life enhancement scheme has a cost ranging from 0.01 to 0.02 pounds per person, which directly relates to the tax position of a person. It would be redundant to expect from the research and researchers to presage the amount that the how much the each household will pay and if there is a possibility that there will be an increase in the cost. To resolve the problem, an imprecise CV question that asked the respondents about providing high Pevensey Levels for WES and possibly respondents WTP approximation is 10p, 1 or 10 pounds. If such a case was concerned, the WTP estimates would reflect an factual error in the answers. Another method is to give the respondents choices, to opt one answer rather they are willing to pay the cost (could be 1p, 2p, 3p ... or 20p) that is also not a better method to evaluaten(Clark Burgess & Harrison 1999). The method that is followed notifies the respondents about the Pevensey levels wild life enhancement scheme cost and to notify the respondents the wild life enhance scheme requires much as compared to the current cost. The respondents were asked rather they are willing to pay more cost in terms of double the current amount or three times, four times, or one thousand times etc. the current amount. As the amount increases in the multiples of the current cost the estimated WTP amount increases. The respondents have given the freedom to choose several higher figures and at every option the respondent have to give his reason for why the respondent bid on that option. If the respondents have not the enough knowledge, they can opt do not know and if they refuse to increase cost, a refusal option is there too. In this way, the WTP amount for Pevensey levels wildlife enhancement scheme increased at a maximum level and more people have the idea of supporting the WES program by giving more than the current cost. The questionnaire was such designed that when a respondent agrees to pay for the Pevensey levels WES, he than bids to pay more and more and a maximum level is thus attained. The respondents were notified how much they are paying for Pevensey levels WES in terms of taxes and asked, are they willing to finance and support the Pevensey level WES from household income. Site of Special Scientific Interests (SSSIs) has a higher value than Pevensey levels WES, in condition that the other wildlife protection scheme fails. The suggestions from the NOAA are regarded to study Pevensey levels. The study utilized face to face interview, predetermined questions, implemented WTP, gave an absolute study on the wildlife enhancement programs, utilized sampling, lessen unanswered questions, have a do not know option for the respondent who are unaware of the facts and information on a particular questions, provided some question without giving a particular reason. The study also gave respondents information about the alternate sites and gave information about how the Pevensey level will reduce the renewable expenses. As in the questionnaire, section respondents are advised to attempt to through a sequence of questions and make bids on as many questions as possible. Only thirteen respondents have not being willing to pay not for the WES, where four are residents, and two are visitors in which only two respondents gave reasons for not willing to pay for the WES. However, one hundred and thirteen respondents denied increasing the amount from the current amount for the WES. Nineteen respondents were residents where as 27 were visitors. Similarly, the bids that have a greater value are analyzed and then placed at certain level. The utilization of median value for a misconception bid may be useful in determining the level of the bid and it had a little impact on removing the incredible bids. The removing of such bids may affect the multiple to decrease from four to 3.4. The utilization of a median bids has certain benefits as compared to mean value. On the other hand, median bids have not the capability to determine cumulative utility. It can only be recorded in mean values. The mean bids drop to a certain lower value upon the elimination of higher bids. The overview of the result showed that most of the residents have higher ratio of WTP for the Pevensey levels wildlife enhancement scheme (WES) where as non-visitors have the lowest WTP amounts. There is much difference in the mean and median bids as mean bids have comparatively quite higher values. Paradigms Priori hypothesis or a postpositivism is the approach that is usually a scientific proposition, which can drive mathematical formulae where each factor has a relationship to the other. The concept stands in the category of quantitative research method where paradigm is compiled of fundamental ideas in relation with the laws. Considering the research, the ontological question would inquire about the things that have a deep relation with the matter and those things which really exists can have some mass a can be counted. Whereas, the epistemological explanation determines the association between the people who gain the knowledge of something and the thing that provides that knowledge (Hoppe 1999). The question that arises is this perspective relates to the working mechanism as well as reality of different thing (Lindblom 1959). The methological explanation deals with the utilization of different methods to determine how to reach the objective. The method utilized could be qualitative or quantitative. In my view, the qualitative approach is better in many perspectives as it verifies positivism or proves postpositivism by utilizing observations. In my opinion, a paradigm only refers to such views, which are much refined and informative, that defines the paradigm in the way the analytical truth remain truth in paradigms. The article “Benefits of Costs and Wildlife Enhancement Scheme: A Case Study of the Pevensey Levels” written by “K. G. Willis” follows the more quantitative research method in which the author make appropriate suggestion and arguments to support the wildlife enhancement scheme. The author made several arguments supporting the hypothetical nature of the topic and the positivist inquiry. In this way, he utilized more predictive way of expressing his ideas and views. The writer utilized quantitative method as he utilized the mathematical approach to enhance the cost of Pevensey levels wildlife enhancement scheme. The writer had less valued the human emotions and interaction between the persons. The writer followed a better method to gain the goal of his research but I think he still has a less impact to convince the respondents. The quantitative approach is a better approach in many other aspects but I think the approach is not appropriate for such scenarios, which involve persons and interaction between the persons. People may have different ideas considering the situation and the social environment of a person (Weiss 1979). Sometimes the economic situation also becomes the reason for the difference in the views of different persons; in this way, it would be inappropriate to utilize the quantitative research methods. However, the other article “I struggled with this money business”: respondents’ perspectives on contingent valuation” written by Judy Clark, Jacquelin Burgess and Carolyn M. Harrison emphasizes on the qualitative research approach, which relies on the interaction between the people and the contextual information (Weingrat 1999) which comes as the result of human interaction. As in the paper, “Politics and society”, the writer ‘Robert E. Goodin and John S. Dryzek’ writes: “The key question, to which mini-publics can provide a clear answer, is “Can we sell this to the public, however hard we try, however much we increase public awareness, information, etc. (Goodin & Dryzek 2006)?” The questionnaire paper is such designed to enhance the emotion perspective of the respondents and a better interaction technique is utilized to gain the confidence of the respondents to enhance the cost of Pevensey level wildlife enhancement scheme (Guba & Lincoln 1993). The method involved the goal achieving techniques of qualitative research approach to provide the respondents adequate knowledge about the wildlife enhancement schemes. In addition, how the scheme is beneficent to the respondents as well as the natural geographic segment of the earth. In my view, the research method well judged the emotions of the respondents. The results gained from the research technique may not predict, what will be the results for the future years (Colebatch 2005) but it can make an estimation of how the people behave and react to the similar situation. In the paper “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research” writers Egon G. Guba and Yvonna S. Lincoln writes, “What is true of Paradigm is the true of our analysis as well” (Guba & Lincoln 1993). In this way, we can suggest that the paradigms only provide a method to achieve the goal of the study and research. The importance of the both the research approaches cannot be neglected. It is not that one approach is better than other is but it depends on the personal views to appreciate one research approach more than the other does. In some ways, the quantitative research approach is better like where fixed formulation is required but researches, which are more associated with the human emotions and interactions, qualitative research approach is a better approach. The three questions that are to be answered in each of the research approach utilized the ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. Both the authors have done remarkable work and both the articles are much convincing in their respective views. Both the articles followed the respective paradigms. The article, “Benefits of Costs and Wildlife Enhancement Scheme: A Case Study of the Pevensey Levels” written by “K. G. Willis” suggests that the writer had a thought of positivism as the ontological assumption shows immature realism which is a reality but there lies a gap in the realistic ideas, the gap can be filled. The epistemological assumption shows that the writer is positivist as the paper always talks about the objectives of the paper. The methodological assumption shows that the writer only verifies the hypotheses by utilizing the experimental methods. While the other article “I struggled with this money business”: respondents’ perspectives on contingent valuation” written by Judy Clark, Jacquelin Burgess and Carolyn M. Harrison shows that the writer concept is post positivism that deliberately answers the three question that have the purpose to analyze the paradigms. In this way, the ontological explanation is realism but it is criticized to make it a perfect explanation for the respective question. Similarly, the epistemological explanation is critically evaluated with the interaction of people, society or community. The hypotheses involve qualitative methods to falsify the hypotheses, which associates to the while experimental and critical multiplism is utilized. In the policy making process, paradigms play a major part. Policy Section The paradigms are important in designing a policy for the government and its different organizations. The role of the two different research approaches in making the policy will help government to apply the ideas and outcomes of a research approach. In case of Pevensey levels wildlife enhancement scheme, two different research approaches are followed one emphasized on qualitative research and the other emphasized in the quantitative methods. As the government are structured by the political parties that are elected by the people by casting their votes, the government will certainly prefer the ideas behind the qualitative research approach. As the qualitative approach is designed to know what the people wants, it would be preferable by the government to implement what people wants that is a democracy. Both the paper followed a set standards and techniques but in my view, the writers “Judy Clark, Jacquelin Burgess and Carolyn M. Harrison” have the more deep thoughts about the nature and protection of nature. The contingent valuation techniques utilized by the ‘Judy Clark, Jacquelin Burgess and Carolyn M. Harrison’ are more appealing that the writer ‘K. G. Willis’ but the ‘K. G. Willis’ has a more deep thoughts about the policy structuring. The writer is more determined to make a larger profit figures and gain more and more profit from increasing the cost of Pevensey levels wild life enhancement schemes. However, in making the policy, one thing must not we forget that policy should be in such a way that every one that comes in the range to be influenced by the policy must accept the policy. It should be in such a way, that the person pays for the policy unwillingly. The unwillingness of a person influence the others related to that person and in this way, the policy losses its importance in the eyes of the public or various figures of the public. In my view, the policy as suggested by the research by ‘Judy Clark, Jacquelin Burgess and Carolyn M. Harrison’ is more appealing, as in the paper, the writer communicates with the public about their views about the cost of Pevensey levels wild life enhancement scheme. Different persons have different views but if we consider how much the amount averagely increases then it, we may say that it is 3.5 to 4 times the original value. Most of the people accepted to pay the amount. In this way, it is better method to be implemented as the policy for the Pevensey level wild life enhancement scheme. References Willis, K. G., 2010, Benefits and Costs of the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme: A Case Study of the Pevensey Levels, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Mortimer Street, London Clark, Judy, Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 1999, ‘‘I Struggled With This Money Business’’: Respondents’Perspectives on Contingent Valuation, Department of Geography, Environment and Society Research Unit, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, UK Colebatch, H.K., 2005, Policy Analysis, Policy Practice and Political Science, Research & Evaluation University Brunei Darussalam and University of New South Wales, National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia. Goodin, Robert E. & Dryzek, John S., 2006, Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics, Politics & Society, Sage Publication. Weiss, Carol H. 1979, The Many Meaning of Research Utilization, Public Administration Review, Columbia University. Weingart, Peter, 1999, Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability: Paradoxes of Science in Politics, Paradoxes, Science and Public Policy, volume 26, number 3, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, England. Patterson, Michael E. & Williams, Daniel R., 2005, Maintaining Research Traditions On Place: Diversity Of Thought And Scientific Progress, Journal of Environmental Psychology, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, USA,US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, USA. Hoppe, Robert, 1999, Policy Analysis, Science And Politics: From ‘Speaking Truth To Power’ To ‘Making Sense Together’, Argumentative turn, Science and Public Policy, volume 26, number 3, Beech Tree Publishing, Guildford, England. Lindblom, Charles E., 1959, The Science of Muddling Through, Wiley Black Well, American Society for Public Administration, Public Administration Review, Vol. 19. Guba, Egon G. & Lincoln, Yvonna S., 1993, Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, Major Paradigms and Prespectives, Newbury Park, Sage publication. Read More