8th Biennial Scientific Conference
International Society for Ecological Economics
Protest Beliefs in Contingent Valuation:
Explaining Their Motivation
Jürgen Meyerhoff* and Ulf Liebe**
*Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für Landschaftsarchitektur und Umweltplanung,
Franklinstr. 28/29, 10587 Berlin (email: [email protected])
**
Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, Department of Sociology, Colonel-Kleinmann-Weg 2,
55099 Mainz (email: [email protected])
The definition and treatment of protest responses in CV-studies can have a
significant influence on the results of CV, especially if these responses are censored.
In order to understand how protest responses are motivated we use an item battery
to identify respondents’ protest beliefs. These items are measured for all respondents
irrespective of their in-principle WTP. Then, a scale based on these beliefs is taken
as dependent variable of a regression analysis. As independent variables we use,
among others, environmental concern, the moral duty people feel to pay, a scale for
their warm glow motivation and a “dilemma scale”, which focuses on cooperation
problems in protecting the environment. The results of a CV-study in which 317
undergraduates stated their WTP for a program to enhance forest biodiversity in
Germany show that protest beliefs are significantly influenced by these explanation
factors. The protest beliefs themselves have a significant effect on the principle WTP.
However, people who are willing to pay can also hold protest beliefs. It is
questionable whether protest responses should be censored or whether it is not
justified to censor them at all (e.g. using it as an attitude). In the later case, new
strategies have to be developed for using CV-results in cost-benefit-analyses.
Attachments
•
Slides of presentation
•
Items of used scales and descriptive statistics
Protest Beliefs in Contingent
Valuation:
Explaining Their Motivation
Jürgen Meyerhoff* and Ulf Liebe**
*Institute for Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning,
Technische Universität Berlin, Germany
**Department of Sociology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany
Motivation
ƒ Protest response := zero bid associated with the
valuation process in Contingent Valuation (CV)
– answers mostly censored
ƒ Definition and treatment of protest responses can
have significant influences on CV results
ƒ Motivations of protest beliefs/ responses are
normally not analysed – We will do it!
ƒ Problem: those who are willing to pay may also hold
protest beliefs (Jorgenssen et al.)
Survey
ƒ CV-study, October 2003: WTP for forest conversion
and biodiversity in German forests
ƒ Full information of 289 undergraduate students in
Mainz and Berlin from written interviews
ƒ WTP elicitation by payment ladder (0 to 100€)
ƒ 78.5 % (n=227) were WTP
mean: 22 €, median: 13 €
Protest scale
Items
(N = 289, sum index of 5-point scales)
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.62)
[agree/ strongly agree in %]
Factor loadings
(explained variance: 35%)
a) I already pay enough for other things.
[10%] 0.76
b) The government should use other revenues for forest
conversion than a contribution to a fund.
[35%] 0.62
c) It is my right to have a high level of biodiversity in forests and
not something I should have to pay extra for.
d) I refuse to assess biodiversity in monetary terms.
[5%] 0.69
[14%] 0.57
e) Those who enjoy biodiversity in forests should pay for the
measures.
[7%] 0.46
f) I do not have enough information about forest conversion.
[46%] 0.42
Potential explanatory variables
Expected
influence
Variable
ƒ Age (19 to 34 years)
-/+
ƒ Personal economic situation (5 point scale)
ƒ Moral obligation to pay (7 point scale)
-/+
-
ƒ General environmental concern (sum index)
(9 items with 5 point scales, Cronbach’s alpha 0.74)
-/+
ƒ Warm glow (sum index)
(5 items with 5 point scales, Cronbach’s alpha 0.51)
-
ƒ Dilemma concern (sum index)
(5 items with 5 point scales, Cronbach’s alpha 0.68)
+
ƒ Social norm (1 = yes)
OLS Regression Protest Scale
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Age
0.01
0.02
Economic situation
-0.10
-0.03
Social norm
-0.09
-0.01
Moral obligation
-0.37**
-0.25**
Environmental Concern
-0.21**
-0.12*
Warm Glow
-0.25**
-0.19**
Dilemma Concern
0.22**
0.23**
Constant
5.86**
18.76**
21.79**
20.89**
N
274
274
274
274
0.003
0.152
0.240
0.281
Adj. R
2
Standardized beta coefficients, significant at * 5%, **1%
Main results protest regression
ƒ Moral obligation to pay – negative influence
ƒ Environmental concern and warm glow of giving –
negative influence
ƒ Dilemma concern – positive influence
ƒ Incentive problems in the provision of public
goods (collective action) foster protest beliefs
Influence of protest beliefs on WTP
I. Logistic regression: in-principle WTP (yes/no)
II. OLS regression: amount of WTP
(midpoint of payment ladder intervals, range 0 to 100€,
ln(WTP), analyses for payers and non-payers)
ƒ Explanatory variables and expected influence
Age
Personal economic situation
Forest visitor
Attitude toward management actions
Protest scale
+
+
+
-
I. Results in-principle WTP
Logistic Regression
Odds Ratio
Age
0.91
Personal economic situation
0.95
Forest visitor (1 = yes)
1.19
Attitude toward target
1.38**
Protest scale
0.72**
Constant
5.53**
N
273
0.218
Adj. R2 (McFadden)
significant at * 5%, **1%
II. Results WTP amounts
(OLS)
Age
Personal economic situation
Forest visitor (1 = yes)
Attitude toward target
Protest scale
Constant
N
Adj. R2
WTP all
ln(WTP)
-0.05
-0.01
0.02
0.32**
-0.35**
3.19**
273
0.270
WTP = yes
ln(WTP)
0.16*
-0.03
-0.01
0.23**
-0.16**
1.67*
215
0.112
Standardized beta coefficients, significant at * 5%, **1%
Conclusion I
ƒ Protest beliefs mainly positively influenced by
dilemma concern
ƒ Protest beliefs mainly negatively influenced by moral
obligation to pay, warm glow and environmental
concern
ƒ Protest beliefs with positive influence on the decision
to pay or not to pay and WTP amounts for both
WTP≥0 and WTP>0
Conclusion II
ƒ Problem
ƒ Even if protest responses are censored (for
WTP=0), there might be protest beliefs in CV (for
WTP>0)
ƒ Potential Solutions
ƒ Integrating Protest beliefs as an accepted attitude
(Jorgenssen et al.) or
ƒ Estimation of a “true WTP” without the ratio of
protest beliefs (no censorship!) –
Result: higher WTP in the population
Table 1: Measurement intruments
Agreement
1
in per cent
Factor
loadings
General Environmental Concern (alpha = 0.74)
Affective aspects
If we continue our current style of living, we are approaching an
environmental catastrophe.
I am afraid when I think about environmental conditions for
future generations.
Watching TV or reading in the newspapers about
environmental problems, I am often embarrassed and angry.
Cognitive aspects
There are limits of economic growth which the industrialized
world has already reached or will be reach very soon.
In my opinion, environmental problems are greatly exaggerated
by proponents of the environmental movement.*
Conative aspects
To protect the environment, we all should be willing to reduce
our current standard of living.
Environmental protection measures should be carried out, even
if this reduces the number of jobs in the economy.
It is still true that politicians do much too little to protect the
environment.
76.0
0.68
62.4
0.69
38.2
0.61
61.0
0.53
6.2
0.57
56.2
0.69
26.3
0.60
66.1
0.48
59.0
0.73
29.2
0.43
83.6
0.61
9.9
0.51
29.5
0.68
40.3
0.55
9.4
0.78
52.4
0.71
2.1
0.69
9.4
0.63
Warm glow motivations (alpha = 0.51)
There are charity-organizations to which I like to contribute a
donation for supporting their work.
If individuals beg for money in the streets, it is hard for me to
deny their request.
I admire individuals, who regularly donate money to a charityorganization.
Persons, who have enough money, should donate something
for charity. I personally fail to see to spare for it.*
I like to contribute money to projects which enhance the
environment. I will rarely deny a request to contribute for such
projects.
Dilemma concern (alpha = 0.68)
My behavior individually has no noteworthy effect on
environmental quality. *
If I individually do something for environmental protection, it
acquires nothing at all.
Environmental behavior makes only sense, if many people take
part.
If others do not take part, I fail to see to do something for the
environment or to set something aside fort he environment.
If I protect the environment, I am the „sucker“, because I suffer
from the environmental damaging behavior of others.
1) agree / strongly agree
2) Statements were measured on a five point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree
* Items transformed (‘new score’ = 6 – ‘original score’).
Table 1: Measurement instruments (continuation)
Personal economic situation
How do you rate your current economic situation?
(from 1 “very bad” to 5 “very good”)
Attitude toward target
How important is the realisation of the presented measures for you compared with other possible
measures policy?
(from 1 “very unimportant” to 7 “very important”)
Would visiting the forest would become more interesting if the presented measures were
realized?
(from 1 “very unlikely” to 7 “unlikely”)
Social norm
What do you think: Are or would your friends and relatives like it, if you voluntary contribute
money for environmental protection?
(from 1 “appreciate very much” to 4 “does not matter”, transformed into dummy variable)
Moral obligation to pay
How much do you see it as a moral obligation to pay something for ecological forest conversion?
(from 1”not at all” to 7”very strong”)
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of independent variables and protest scale
Variables
N
Min
Max
Mean
Sd
Age
289
19
34
23.00
2.954
Personal economic situation
289
1
5
3.138
0.771
Forest visitor
289
0
1
0.770
0.421
Attitude toward target
289
2
14
10.439
2.415
Social norm
289
0
1
0.611
0.488
Moral obligation to pay
289
1
7
4.385
1.508
General environmental concern
289
12
39
29.237
4.496
Warm glow
289
7
24
17.247
2.805
Dilemma concern
289
5
23
12.025
3.298
Protest scale
274
7
27
14.836
3.308