Evaluating alternative survey methodologies in human dimensions of wildlife research

Abstract

Surveys are frequently used in human dimensions of wildlife research. Declines in response rates from mail and telephone surveys, however, have led researchers to seek alternatives (e.g., online platforms). This article evaluated effects of both selection and response biases on estimates of demographics, wildlife-related recreation, and wildlife value orientations across mail, telephone, and online panel surveys. Selection bias revealed that the mail survey overestimated males and older respondents. By design, the online panel yielded demographic estimates proportional to the population. All methods underestimated non-participants in hunting/fishing. Response bias via acquiescence (i.e., agreement on all items) was evident in the telephone survey, which showed higher population estimates of Pluralists, defined as people emphasizing both mutualism and domination orientations. Findings showed data weighting is necessary to address selection concerns in all three methods. Combined mail/online panel approaches are recommended for measuring wildlife value orientations and similar concepts to avoid possible response bias.