English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A respondent finds a survey consequential if they believe their answer could influence the policy being addressed in the survey and if they believe that they will have to pay for the policy if implemented. Given these criteria, the literature has followed two paths to analyse consequentiality. The first uses a discrete method that separates respondents into consequential and inconsequential groups. The second interprets beliefs about consequentiality as continuous. We compare these approaches to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Using the discrete approach, we classify respondents into groups based on whether their responses satisfy various consequentiality criteria. We find that respondents in the inconsequential group have a willingness to pay that is insignificantly different from zero. For those in the consequential group, willingness to pay is positive and depends on the scope of the project. Treating consequentiality as continuous and using the hybrid choice model, we find that individuals who believe their responses will influence policy, policy consequentiality, and those who are concerned about the amenity are more likely to be in favour of the policy. Lastly, income is positively related to payment consequentiality.

Discrete and continuous measures of consequentiality