Handy Family Foundation Environmental Behavior Grants

Transcription

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO Address reply to: Nika Lapis DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLICY One Shields Way Davis, California Telephone No. (415) CALIFORNIA, DAVIS SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Handy Family Foundation Environmental Behavior Grants PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Nika Lapis ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTION: University of California, Davis PROPOSAL TITLE: Self-Interest in Environmental Voting: The Peripheral Canal Case Study CONTACT INFORMATION:

2 SUMMARY BACKGROUND: When voters decide whether or not to support any given policy or piece of legislation, they face many different factor in their choice. One might assume that the final decision is a result of a person s convictions and ideology because most contentious issues revolve around fundamental ideological. The case of the Peripheral Canal proposal, however, seems to provide an interesting counterpoint to this assertion. The project was voted on in 1982, and the resulting vote broke down almost exclusively by geography (a major factor of self-interest in this debate) (Hundley 2001). This leads us to our hypothesis that self-interest is a larger determinant of level of support for a given policy than is ideological agreement with the issue. If this study confirms our hypothesis, it would have profound ramifications for all highly contested policy questions, especially those related to the environment because environmental issues tend to involve conflicting personal incentives and societal benefits. SPECIFIC AIMS: The specific aim of this study will be to determine whether self-interest plays a larger role in determining the degree to which an individual will support specific legislation than do the person s values. This will be analyzed specifically for the case of the Peripheral Canal, but if the hypothesis is supported, it might be expanded to other issues.. METHODS: The hypothesis will be tested using a cross-sectional, quantitative study. A survey will be sent to a total of 12,000 households in six different geographic areas (with an expected response rate of 400 people per area). The survey will ask about the participants

3 environmental value, political ideology, source of income, geography, knowledge of the Peripheral Canal issue, and level of support for the project. We will then determine whether there is a stronger correlation between ideology and values and support or source of income and geography and support.

4 PROPOSAL NARRATIVE BACKGROUND, REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE, AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL: Water is a very scarce resource in California. While roughly two-thirds of all the water is located in the northern part of the state, almost two-thirds of the water users are located in the southern part. This has led to a long history of water diversion from North to South, involving major federal, state, and local water projects. The Central Valley Project, State Water Project, Colorado River Diversion, Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct all seek to deliver water to agricultural and urban areas that would not have it naturally (Hundley 2001, Wilkinson 1993). Despit its advantages, California water development has come at a large price to the environment, destroying the habitats and spawning runs of many fish that are now on the brink of extinction (Hundley 2001). The issue of water supply has become a key battleground between environmentalists, urban developers, and agricultural interests. Environmental problems are often depicted as simply pinning those who support the environmental against those who don t, but in most issues there seems to be some degree of self-interest involved when it comes to actual public support or voting on an issue. This leads to a fascinating fundamental question: When members of the public actually cast a vote for an environmental issue, is self-interest a larger determinant in their vote than their self-proclaimed values, beliefs, and ideology? To answer this question, one might look at a perennial environmental controversy, the Peripheral Canal, a large water project that would connect the Sacramento River directly with water conveyance mechanisms that will eventually bring the water south. This would involve bypassing the San Francisco Bay Delta to ensure more reliable water supply (with horrible environmental consequences for many endangered species) (Hundley 2001). This issue has been brought up often in the past, including a 1982 vote where it was rejected, and is currently being

5 proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger once again. The hypothesis here would be that although people might feel strongly about protecting the environment, their degree of support for this measure is more greatly influenced by self interest, such as geography (those in the south or in the Central Valley would be more supportive than those in the North) and income-source (those in industries that rely on water availability, such as agriculture or land development, would be more supportive). Political Ideology Environmental Awareness & Attitudes Geographic Location Source of Income Knowledge of the issue Conceptual Model Support for the Peripheral Canal Project Legend Dependent Variable Independent Variable Control Variable Self-Interest Environmental Beliefs There has been thorough examination of the issue of environmental voting in previous literature, although it does not seem as though any research has been done on this specific question. Researchers from multiple disciplines have looked at why people choose to vote for something that might serve as a benefit to society but come at a price to them individually. One experimental study (Tyran 2002), for instance, offered that people will vote in support of socially beneficial legislation based on how they expect others to vote. They will vote to support it if they think it has no chance of passing or if it will pass with or without them. If their vote is decisive however, they will likely oppose the measure. This would be consistent with our hypothesis that

6 personal beliefs are important, but self-interest can actually override the beliefs (the values are presented when the person doesn t think their vote will change the outcome). A paper in the Journal of Law and Economics analyzed voting on environmental initiatives in California (including the 1982 Peripheral Canal ballot measure) (Kahn 1997). In regards to voting on environmental issues, the authors found the configuration and identity of interest groups appears to be stable across widely varying issues and over time: people in construction, farming, forestry, and manufacturing are opposed while highly educated urban dwellers are in favor of environmentally beneficial measures. This would seem to lend some support to our hypothesis that source of income and geography are very important determinants Kinder et al (1979) offer a comprehensive study that contends that personal self-interest plays no part in congressional voting. Instead they argue that ideological predisposition is a greater determinant in these types of elections. On the other hand, Thomas Holmes (1990) offered the argument that it is in fact a combination of both ideology and self-interest that play an active role in people s decisions. One of the conclusions he reaches is further, our empirical analysis lends support to the hypothesis that altruistic motivations, as well as narrowly defined self-interest, influence political choices by individuals. SPECIFIC AIMS: The specific aim of this proposed research would be to test whether people choose whether or not to support a given environmental proposition based more on self-interested or their values and ideology. This will allow us to build on the previous work in this field to determine the why people vote the way they do. If our hypothesis is supported, than there should be a fundamental shift on both sides of environmental campaigns from focusing on the merits of

7 their argument to showing people how they would directly benefit or be harmed by a given policy. STUDY DESIGN: This explanatory study seeks to determine whether people s degree of support for environmentally damaging project is more greatly influenced by self interest (i.e. geography, source of income) than by environmental beliefs and attitudes. In order to support this claim, we will compare the effects of the different ideological variables and the self-interest on the degree of support for the environmentally damaging Peripheral Canal Project. At the same time, it is crucial to control for a person s knowledge of the issue (for example those who know more about the canal might oppose it more than those who don t know about it), so that the study shows how people who are equally informed about an issue will have different levels of support based on the other variables discussed here. The causal model provided above demonstrates the two groups of independent variables (the Environmental Beliefs and the Self-Interest variables), the main control variable (knowledge of the issue), and the dependent variable (support for the project). The unit of analysis for these variables will be individuals because voting occurs at an individual level and the other studies in this field were done with individuals (this will allow future comparison among studies). The design of this study will be non-experimental and cross-sectional. The survey will be sent out once and it will ask a series of questions to measure each of the variables. There will be a range of questions to measure the 2 groups of independent variables and the one control variable, and index scores will be created for each of these variables. A 5-point Likert Scale will be used to measure the dependent variable. This will allow us to compare what has the stronger correlation with the dependent variable. It will not allow us to compare over time, but this should

8 not be important because we are only seeking to find the reasons for current support or disapproval. Due to the limited nature of the question at hand, this study will not address the issue of time-order of the independent variables causing the dependent ones. The study should have high internal validity because it should show an association between both types of independent variables and the dependent variable. It should also be nonspurious because there do not seem to be any variables (other than the control) that would cause one to both support the Peripheral Canal and live in a certain area or have a certain source of income, and there isn t anything to cause both a certain ideology and support for the canal. The causal mechanism for both of these sets of variables seems quite clear. For instance, being in a career that requires additional water (such as agriculture) would lead one to need water to do their job, which would, in turn, lead them to want more water supply initiatives, which would make them support the Peripheral Canal. Variable Definition Method Measure Type Political Ideology (IV) Environmental Awareness & Attitudes (IV) Geographic Distribution (IV) Source of Income (IV) Knowledge of the issue (IVcontrol) An index score for several questions ranging from party affiliation to general ideology. An index score for beliefs about the necessity of environmental protection and personal attitudes Survey Survey State your political party: Green, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Other Decline to Say, Don t Know. Several questions like: Most endangered species are no longer in danger of extinction. Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, towards conservation. strongly agree, don t know. Location in the state Survey Which best describes where you live: South Coast, Central Valley, North Coast, Inland Empire, Bay Area, Sierra Nevada? Current industry of occupation or significant source of income Index score of the understanding of the proposed Peripheral Canal Project (including arguments in support and in opposition) Survey Survey Do you currently derive a significant source of your income from (check all that apply): agriculture, land development, other industry dependent on water, other industry not dependent on water? Several true/false questions like: The peripheral canal is proposed by environmentalists to protect endangered fish. Nominal Ordinal Nominal Nominal Ordinal

9 Support for the Peripheral Canal Project (DV) Level of support/opposition to the project Survey To what degree do you agree with the statement: We should build a Peripheral Canal connecting the Sacramento River with southern water conveyances, bypassing the bay delta? Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree, don t know. Ordinal To test for measurement validity we would need to use convergent validity because there is no gold standard that can be readily used. The convergent validity can be tested by asking the person how the actually voted on similar water supply issues in the past, which can then be compared to how much they said they would support the currently proposed project. To make sure that our results are reliable we would need to resend the survey to a small subset of the group after a month and compare their answers over time. SAMPLING PLAN: The target population for this survey would be individuals in each of the six areas of California listed above. The sampling frame would probably have to be purchased from marketing data. Within the marketing data, we would stratify the state by the six areas and send surveys to 2000 people in each stratum selected through simple random sampling in each area. Given a conservative 20% response rate for the survey, this will provide us with 400 completed surveys for each stratum (which is statistically high enough to draw conclusions about each geographic area). The data from this study should be fairly generalizable to the rest of the population in these areas because of the large number of participants and their broad distribution throughout the state. To make sure that we have a representative sample, we would compare our socioeconomic and demographic responses to current census data. Unfortunately, this study would not allow much cross-population generalizability to other states, regions, or countries because

10 California is quite unique in terms of geo-spatial and ideological characteristics. Nonetheless, if the results support our hypothesis, similar hypothesis may be tested in other populations (such as the entire country). MEASUREMENT METHODS: The data collection instrument used in this study will be a statewide survey distributed by strata (as defined in the Research Design section). The survey will seek to measure each of the independent and dependent variables through a host of questions. The goal is to get accurate information for each variable while minimizing the amount of questions that survey takers need to answer. The first two groups of questions are designed to measure the survey taker s environmental attitudes and behaviors (the first set is behaviors and the second set is attitude).these questions were partially adapted from a survey on environmental activism created in a Seminar on the UC Davis campus taught by Professor Mark Lubell. The score for all these questions will be combined into a single Environmental Attitudes index. The next set of questions (top of page 2) is designed to measure the political ideology of the survey taker. They will be combined with two questions from the following section (selfassessment of ideology and voting in the previous election) to form a single index of PRE-TESTING PROCESS Pre-testers: 20 year old UC Davis student 57 year old San Franciscan 26 year old San Franciscan Suggestions Given: Formatting needed to be more spread out (more white space ) Several of the questions needed to be reworded because they were asking more than one thing at a time Don t know needed to be added as an option Items at the end should be multiple choice (instead of listed) A couple questions were irrelevant All these suggestions were incorporated into the final survey and these three people approved the changes.

11 Political Ideology. These will be combined by converting the two nominal questions to a 5- point Likert scale (where strongly liberal is a 5 and strongly conservative is a 1, and John Kerry is a 4 and George W. Bush is a 2), then these answers can simply be averaged with those in the previous section. The following section also contains a question regarding where the survey taker lives (for the Location variable) and where they derive their income (for the Source of Income variable). The two questions about whether or not the participant would support a peripheral canal project or if they have supported it in the past serve to measure the dependent variable. The last section is designed to test the survey-taker s knowledge of the peripheral canal issue through a set of true-false question. These answers will be combined to create an index score for the Knowledge variable. This survey will be administered through the mail. It will be sent only once (for budgetary concerns), but the survey will be sent to enough people to expect a sufficient response rate. People who do not respond will not be asked again, and those who do respond will not be thanked in any follow-up correspondence (except those who will be chosen to conduct a retest). ANALYSIS PLAN: The data from the survey will be analyzed by looking for correlation between the sets of independent variables and the dependent variable at a confidence level of p=.05. This will be done through a logistic-linear cross tabulation, in which we will control for knowledge of the issue. We expect people with the same level of knowledge for an issue to have a stronger correlation with the self-interest variables than with the ideological ones. PROPOSED BUDGET:

12 As was mentioned in the study design section, we intend to have 400 respondents from each of the six geographic strata (which is more than sufficient to draw conclusions about the area). Since the survey is being sent out only once, we would not expect a response rate higher than 20%. This would mean that in order to receive 400 completed surveys from each region, we would need to send 2,000. Since there are 6 different geographic areas we would need to send a total of 12,000 surveys. The survey will be written, sent out, and collected by me, and I will answer any question that people might have. I will also perform the data analysis, and I will help with the data entry. This will take up roughly 30% of my daily activities for the school year, and a research assistant will be hired for 30 hours of work to help with data entry. A detailed budget is attached, but a summary can be seen here. BUDGET SUMMARY Category Description Amount Personnel 9 months at 30% for 1 research assistant $7,648 Equipment No new equipment needed $0 Travel No travel necessary $0 Other Direct Cost of mailing the survey: $10,636 Database of addresses ($100 plus $0.08/address) Copying Cost ($0.07/page) * 3 pages/survey * surveys Postage ($0.39*12000 outgoing + $0.39*2400 returning) Envelopes ($0.05 * ) Business Reply Envelopes ($0.07 *12000) Total Direct $18,284 Total Indirect $1,646 Total Cost $19,930

13 WORKS CITED: Holmes, Thomas P. Self-Interest, Altruism, and Health-Risk Reduction: An Economic Analysis of Voting Behavior Land Economics, Vol. 66, No. 2. (May, 1990), pp < Hundley, Norris The Great Thirst: Californians and Water-A History (Revised Edition). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kahn, Matthew E. and John G. Matsusaka. Demand for Environmental Goods: Evidence from Voting Patterns on California Initiatives. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 40, No. 1. (Apr, 1997), pp < Kinder, Donald R. and D. Roderick Kiewiet Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting. American Journal of Political Science 23: Tyran, Jean-Robert. Voting When Money and Morals Conflict: an Experimental Test of Expressive Voting. University of St. Gallen. St. Gallen, Switzerland: Forschungsgemeinschaft für Nationalökonomie an der Universität St. Gallen, < Wilkinson, Charles Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the Future of the West. Covelo, CA: Island Press

14 FULL PROPOSAL BUDGET Year 1 A. PERSONNEL Research 30% for 9 months - academic year $7, % for 3 months - summer $0 Research $10/hour hours for data entry $300 0 hours for other work $0 Computer 0 months $0 TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES $7,547 B. FRINGE BENEFITS Research 1.4% for 9 months - acad. yr $101 Research 3% for 3 months - summer $0 Computer 37% $0 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS $101 TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES, AND FRINGE (A+B) $7,648 C. PERMANENT EQUIPMENT Project computers, workstations, and peripherals $0 TOTAL PERMANENT EQUIPMENT $0 D. TRAVEL Research meetings (as required) $0 Data collection field trips $0 TOTAL TRAVEL (DOMESTIC) $0 E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS Database of addresses ($100 plus $0.08/address): $1,060 Copying Cost ($0.07/page) * 3 pages/survey * surveys $2,520 Postage ($0.39 * 12000outgoing + $0.39 * 2400returning) $5,616 Envelopes ($0.05 * ) $600 Business Reply Envelopes ($0.07 *12000) $840 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $10,636 F. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH E) $18,284 G. INDIRECT COSTS (9%) $1,646 H. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (F+G) $19,930

15 UC Davis Survey Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. These questions will be used by researchers at the University of California to help in a state-wide study. Thank you. How frequently did you do the following things in the past year? Always, often, rarely, or never? Circle the appropriate answer. Always Often Rarely Never Recycle. Use public transportation. Buy organic. Grow your own food. Purchase recycled products. Print on both sides of the paper. Minimize water use while showering or brushing teeth. Walk or ride a bike instead of driving a car, when given the choice. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Circle the appropriate number between 1 and 5, where 1 equals strongly disagree, 5 equals strongly agree, and 3 equals indifferent. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Humans are severely abusing the environment If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated If I engage in environmentally friendly activities, this will encourage others to take action Nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations A significant number of people in my community are taking action to improve environmental quality

16 Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Circle the appropriate number between 1 and 5, where 1 equals strongly disagree, 5 equals strongly agree, and 3 equals indifferent. Strongly Strongly The government should take a stronger role in providing health care and social services to those with lower income. Taxes should be lowered to allow larger economic investment by entrepeneurs. Labor unions exert too much control over some members of congress Disagree Agree Bill Clinton was a very good president Ronald Reagan was a very good president Congress needs to encourage the president to sign the Kyoto Accord Please answer the following questions about yourself. If you live in California, what part of the state do you live in? (circle one) a. South Coast b. Central Valley c. North Coast d. Inland Empire e. Bay Area f. Sierra Nevada g. Other h. I don t live in California Do you currently derive a significant source of your income from one of the following? (circle all that apply): a. Agriculture b. Land development c. Other industry dependent on water d. Other industry not dependent on water e. Don t Know Did you vote in the last Presidential election (circle the appropriate answer)? Yes No

17 If you voted in the last Presidential election, who did you vote for (circle one)? George W. Bush John Kerry Other Rather not say Which of the following categories best describes your political views (circle one)? a. Strongly liberal b. Liberal c. Slightly liberal d. Middle of the road e. Slightly conservative f. Conservative g. Strongly conservative To what degree do you agree with the statement: We should build a Peripheral Canal connecting the Sacramento River with southern water conveyances, bypassing the bay delta? (circle one) a. Strongly disagree b. Slightly disagree c. Neutral d. Slightly agree e. Strongly agree f. Don t know If you have voted on the Peripheral Canal before, how did you vote? (circle one) g. In support of the Canal h. In opposition of the Canal i. Don t remember j. I have never voted on the Peripheral Canal Please choose whether each of the following statements is true or false (circle one) The peripheral canal was proposed by environmentalists to protect True endangered fish. False The peripheral canal was on the ballot in 1982 and rejected. True False The San Francisco Bay Delta is where the Colorado River flows into the ocean A major earthquake in the Delta would cause levee breaks that would leave Southern California without any water. The Delta Smelt used to be a common fish in the San Francisco Delta, but it is now listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. True True True False False False The delta is the only source of water for Southern California. True False The delta suffers from a lack of diverse fish species being brought in through ship ballasts. True False The delta suffers from problems with high salinity. True False For any questions regarding this survey, feel free to call or send a letter to: Nika Lapis c/o Environmental Science and Policy, 1 Shields Ave, Davis CA 95616