Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation

By M. Kaplowitz, J. Hoehn. 2001

238 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ebf719b10a532dfd1c1cdbd555a7aa8b78aa0f61

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. J. Kenter
2. C. Spash
3. I. Fazey
4. A. Vatn
5. Michael Christie
6. T. Hyde
7. R. Cooper
8. Richard B. Howarth

In Global and Planetary Change

1. J. Kenter
2. C. Spash
3. I. Fazey
4. Michael Christie
5. A. Vatn
6. T. Hyde
7. M. Wilson
8. Richard B. Howarth

In Social Psychology

1. C. Spash
2. Michael Christie
3. Kevin McKenna
4. G. Guest
5. E. Namey

Citations in the corpus

• An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies (2012, background): “For example, in-depth interviews and focus groups may allow greater in-depth assessments of the motivations underlying people's value for biodiversity (Kaplowitz and Hoehn, 2001).”
• The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries - evidence from the Solomon Islands (2011, background): “It has also been suggested that group dynamics draw out greater attention to less obvious values of the environment (Kaplowitz, 2001; Kaplowitz and Hoehn, 2001), which is important for indigenous societies that may have strong but subtle ties to the natural capital upon which they depend.”
• Diversity and genetic erosion of traditional vegetables in Tanzania from the farmer's point of view (2005, background): “Kaplowitz and Hoehn (2001) concluded in a comparative study that focus groups and individual interviews are not substitutes for one another; but rather, are complementary.”
• The use of triangulation in qualitative research. (2014, background): “Kaplowitz and Hoehn (2001) found that using FGs and IDI interviews provided different perspectives on resources, values, and issues and concluded that one method was not better than the other, but rather that the two approaches were complementary.”
• Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study (2017, methodology): “In one set of studies (Kaplowitz, 2000; Kaplowitz & Hoehn, 2001), individual interviews were 18 times more likely to raise socially sensitive discussion topics than focus groups.”
• Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation (2002, background): “…a series of 12 focus groups and 19 individual interviews with residents from two villages near the Gulf of Mexico, the authors conclude that that ‘focus groups and individual interviews are not substitutes’ (p. 3), and further suggest that the methods are complementary (Kaplowitz and Hoehn, 2001).”
• Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives (2006, background): “Kaplowitz and Hoehn (2001) show how focus groups provide complementary information on how individuals value the environment compared to individual interviews.”