A Comparison of Tablet-Based and Paper-Based Survey Data Collection in Conservation Projects

There is growing use of household surveys by conservation organizations as they seek to measure the social impacts of conservation initiatives, especially in developing countries. Several recent health-sector studies suggest that computer-aided personal interviewing may be a cheaper and faster alternative to the traditional paper-based interviewing. Here, a comparison of The Nature Conservancy-funded tablet computer-based and paper-based household surveys is presented. Because the tablet and paper surveys were not identical except for the data collection tool, the results are suggestive. In the comparison, the cost per completed interview for the tablet-based survey was 74% less than the paper-based survey average, and the average time per interview question for the tablet-based survey was 46% less than the paper-based survey average. The cost saving came primarily from less need for data cleaning and lower enumerator fees. The time saving came primarily from faster data entry. The results suggest that there may be substantial savings in costs and time when using tablets rather than paper for survey data collection in a developing country.

[1]  Joy Buolamwini,et al.  A Novel Electronic Data Collection System for Large-Scale Surveys of Neglected Tropical Diseases , 2013, PloS one.

[2]  James E. M. Watson,et al.  Investing in Threatened Species Conservation: Does Corruption Outweigh Purchasing Power? , 2011, PloS one.

[3]  Paul Telfer,et al.  Parks and People: Assessing the Human Welfare Effects of Establishing Protected Areas for Biodiversity Conservation , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[4]  J. Car,et al.  Smartphone Versus Pen-and-Paper Data Collection of Infant Feeding Practices in Rural China , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[5]  K. Tar,et al.  Computer-assisted rapid surveys in developing countries. , 1989, Public health reports.

[6]  Maria Brockhaus,et al.  Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): An application to compare national REDD+ policy processes , 2013 .

[7]  W. Sutherland,et al.  The need for evidence-based conservation. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[8]  D. Pauly,et al.  Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas , 2011 .

[9]  S. Shiffman,et al.  Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[10]  M. Walpole,et al.  Measuring social impacts in conservation: experience of using the Most Significant Change method , 2008, Oryx.

[11]  David M. Aanensen,et al.  EpiCollect: Linking Smartphones to Web Applications for Epidemiology, Ecology and Community Data Collection , 2009, PloS one.

[12]  Andrew S. Pullin,et al.  Effectiveness in Conservation Practice: Pointers from Medicine and Public Health , 2001 .

[13]  T. Boucher,et al.  Measuring the Impacts of Community-based Grasslands Management in Mongolia's Gobi , 2012, PloS one.

[14]  Peter Byass,et al.  Direct data capture using hand‐held computers in rural Burkina Faso: experiences, benefits and lessons learnt , 2008, Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH.