Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Distributing a survey using Every Door Direct Mail in an ideal use case

Bibliographic Data

ID4563779
AuthorsJacob C White (0009-0000-4627-1971), Jacob White (0000-0002-3557-3568, Michigan State University), Douglas L Bessette (0000-0001-7709-8518, Michigan State University)
Year2025
Volume18
Issue2
Pages89-100
Publication date2025-06-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueMethodological Innovations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2059-7991 • E-ISSN: 2059-7991
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/20597991251329754
OpenAlexW4409707508
LanguageEN
References cited45

While paper mail-based surveys avoid much of the risk of bots and fraudulent data, they suffer from lower response rates and ever-inflating material and logistical costs. In response, there is a nascent, but growing literature investigating a lower cost, explicitly anonymous, mail-based survey distribution method called Every Door Direct Mail (EDDM). This study contributes to this growing body of literature by using EDDM to disseminate a sequential mixed-mode census-style survey that meets best use-case recommendations per past research. We make several design alterations to elicit higher response rates including using an outer envelope and cash incentive. The survey, distributed near large-scale solar developments in three urban Michigan communities (~1554 households), was geographically based, targeted a specific and limited population, and covered the potentially sensitive topic of local solar development, which may have also led to a higher response rate. The survey achieved an overall response rate of 10.2% with 158 complete surveys returned, demonstrating this work's usefulness, use case, and flexibility

Computer security · Ideal (ethics · Political science · Computer Science · Human Mobility and Location-Based Analysis · Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing · Survey Methodology and Nonresponse

  • Data quality in online human-subjects research

    Open Access•Benjamin D Douglas, Patrick J Ewell et al.•PLoS ONE•2023

  • Threats of Bots and Other Bad Actors to Data Quality Following Research Participant Recruitment Through Social Media

    Open Access•Rachel Pozzar, Marilyn J Hammer et al.•Journal of Medical Internet…•2020

  • Reconsidering barriers to wind power projects

    Open Access•Jeremy Firestone, Ben Hoen et al.•Journal of Environmental Policy &…•2018

  • Online surveys

    Open Access•Amber Thompson, Rebecca L Utz•Quality & Quantity•2025

  • The inaccuracy of data from online surveys

    Open Access•Jennifer P Agans, Serena A Schade et al.•Quality & Quantity•2024

  • Ensuring survey research data integrity in the era of internet bots

    Open Access•Marybec Griffin, Richard J Martino et al.•Quality & Quantity•2022

  • Hard-to-Survey Populations

    Open Access•Bradford Edwards, Tom W Smith et al.•Hard-To-Survey Populations•2014

  • Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys

    Open Access•Robert M Groves, Mick P Couper•Nonresponse in household…•1998

  • Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed‐Mode Surveys

    Don A Dillman, Jolene D Smyth et al.•Internet, Phone, Mail, and…•2014

  • Web Versus Other Survey Modes

    Open Access•Jessica Daikeler, Michael Bosnjak et al.•Journal of Survey Statistics and…•2019

  • Comparison of an Internet Versus Mail Survey

    Larry M Gigliotti•Human Dimensions of Wildlife•2011

  • Rural opposition to landscape change from solar energy

    Open Access•Inhwan Ko•Energy Research & Social Science•2023

  • Good fences make good neighbors

    Open Access•Douglas L Bessette, Ben Hoen et al.•Energy Research & Social Science•2023

  • Rallying the anti-crowd

    Open Access•Jessica Crawford, Douglas L Bessette et al.•Energy Research & Social Science•2022

  • Fraud in Online Surveys

    Open Access•Andrew M Bell, Thomas Gift•Journal of Experimental Political…•2022

  • Paper, E-mail, or Both? Effects of Contact Mode on Participation in a Web Survey of Establishments

    Open Access•Joseph W Sakshaug, Basha Vicari et al.•Social Science Computer Review•2018

  • Straightlining

    Open Access•Yujin Kim, Jennifer Dykema et al.•Social Science Computer Review•2018

  • Insights for the Drop-off/Pick-up Method to Improve Data Collection

    Anne N Junod, Jeffrey B Jacquet et al.•Society & Natural Resources•2022

  • The End of the (Research) World As We Know It? Understanding and Coping With Declining Response Rates to Mail Surveys

    Richard C Stedman, Nancy A Connelly et al.•Society & Natural Resources•2019

  • Effect of Monetary Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates for Midwestern Farmers

    Zoë Glas, Zoë E Glas et al.•Society & Natural Resources•2018

  • Comparing Response Rates from Web and Mail Surveys

    Open Access•Tse-Hua Shih, Xitao Fan et al.•CAM•2008

  • Within-Household Selection in Mail Surveys

    Kristen Olson, Jolene D Smyth•Public Opinion Quarterly•2017

  • The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis

    Open Access•Ryan Kennedy, Clifford et al.•Political Science Research and…•2020

  • The micro-task market for lemons

    Open Access•Douglas J Ahler, Carolyn E Roush et al.•Political Science Research and…•2025

  • Every Door Direct Mail in US survey research

    Open Access•Emily Grubert•Methodological Innovations•2019

  • Reacting to the Rural Burden

    Open Access•Roberta S Nilson, Richard C Stedman•Rural Sociology•2023

Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae