Browsing by Person "Neef, Andreas"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Assessing participation in agricultural research projects: an analytical framework
(2004) Neef, Andreas; Neubert, Dieter
Recent discourse in the field of agricultural research has focused on how to assess and optimize the use of participatory approaches. In this paper, we propose a new Analytical Framework for the Assessment of Participatory Agricultural Research (AFAPAR) that seeks to evaluate participatory research elements along different dimensions and over several research phases and thus takes into account the complexity and dynamics of agricultural research projects. Empirical data from a long-term collaborative research program on ?Sustainable Land Use and Rural Development in Mountainous Regions of Southeast Asia? (The Uplands Program ? SFB 564) are used to explore the potential and shortcomings of AFAPAR. Findings suggest that while there is a need for further refinement, the analytical framework provides a sound basis for a differentiated assessment of participatory approaches in agricultural research that goes beyond the existing one-dimensional typologies of participatory research with their inherent claim of ?the more participation, the better?.
Better than their reputation : a case for mail surveys in contingent valuation
(2008) Sinphurmsukskul, Nopasom; Sangkapitux, Chapika; Neef, Andreas; Kitchaicharoen, Jirawan; Frör, Oliver; Ekasingh, Benchaphun; Ahlheim, Michael
Though contingent valuation is the dominant technique for the valuation of public projects, especially in the environmental sector, the high costs of contingent valuation surveys prevent the use of this method for the assessment of relatively small projects. The reason for this cost problem is that typically only contingent valuation studies which are based on face-to-face interviews are accepted as leading to valid results. Especially in countries with high wages face-to-face surveys are extremely costly considering that for a valid contingent valuation study a minimum of 1,000 completed face-to-face interviews is required. In this paper we try a rehabilitation of mail surveys as low-budget substitutes for costly face-to-face surveys. Based on an empirical contingent valuation study in Northern Thailand we show that the validity of mail surveys can be improved significantly if so-called citizen expert groups are employed for a thorough survey design.
Using citizen expert groups in environmental valuation : lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand
(2007) Ahlheim, Michael; Ekasingh, Benchaphun; Frör, Oliver; Kitchaicharoen, Jirawan; Neef, Andreas; Sangkapitux, Chapika; Sinphurmsukskul, Nopasom
In this paper we show how citizen expert groups can be used to improve the design of contingent valuation surveys. The concept of citizen expert groups combines the various advantages of focus groups and of participatory approaches like citizen juries and the market stall method. Using an empirical study in Thailand it is demonstrated that after developing the project scenario and the questionnaire in cooperation with a citizen expert group the result of the study became independent of the interview form used in the survey which was taken as an indicator for the reliability and validity of the study.Testing different elicitation question formats in our survey it showed that with the payment card format face-to-face interviews and mail interviews yielded the same social willingness to pay. A practical consequence of our findings could be that in the future costly face-to-face interviews can be substituted by much cheaper mail interviews in CVM surveys if the payment card format is used for the elicitation question and the whole survey design is optimized following the advice resulting from appropriately organized citizen expert groups.