Handy Family Foundation – Environmental Behavior Grantsenvironmental value, political ideology,...

17
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 95616-8512 Telephone No. (415) 845-6335 E-mail: [email protected] 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: [email protected]

Transcript of Handy Family Foundation – Environmental Behavior Grantsenvironmental value, political ideology,...

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVISBERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO

Address reply to: Nika LapisDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLICYOne Shields WayDavis, California 95616-8512Telephone No. (415) 845-6335E-mail: [email protected]

CALIFORNIA, DAVIS SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL ANDENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Handy Family Foundation – Environmental Behavior Grants

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Nika LapisORGANIZATION/INSTITUTION: University of California, DavisPROPOSAL TITLE: Self-Interest in Environmental Voting: The Peripheral Canal Case Study CONTACT INFORMATION: [email protected]

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 counter-

point 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’

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.

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

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).

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

Conceptual Model

Environmental Awareness &

Attitudes

Geographic Location

Political Ideology

Source of Income

Support for the Peripheral

Canal Project

Knowledge of the issue

Legend

Environmental Beliefs

Self-Interest

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

Control Variable

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

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

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 non-

spurious 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 TypePolitical Ideology (IV)

An index score for several questions ranging from party affiliation to general ideology.

Survey “State your political party: Green, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Other Decline to Say, Don’t Know.”

Nominal

Environmental Awareness &Attitudes (IV)

An index score for beliefs about the necessity of environmental protection and personal attitudes towards conservation.

Survey Several questions like: “Most endangered species are no longer in danger of extinction.” Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree, don’t know.

Ordinal

Geographic Distribution (IV)

Location in the state Survey Which best describes where you live: South Coast, Central Valley, North Coast, Inland Empire, Bay Area, Sierra Nevada?

Nominal

Source of Income(IV)

Current industry of occupation or significant source of income

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?

Nominal

Knowledge of the issue (IV-control)

Index score of the understanding of the proposed Peripheral Canal Project (including arguments in support and in opposition)

Survey Several true/false questions like: “The peripheral canal is proposed by environmentalists to protect endangered fish.”

Ordinal

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 socio-

economic and demographic responses to current census data. Unfortunately, this study would not

allow much cross-population generalizability to other states, regions, or countries because

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.

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 (self-

assessment of ideology and voting in the

previous election) to form a single index of

“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:

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 SUMMARYCategory 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: Database of 12000 addresses ($100 plus

$0.08/address) Copying Cost ($0.07/page) * 3 pages/survey

* 12000 surveys Postage ($0.39*12000 outgoing +

$0.39*2400 returning) Envelopes ($0.05 * 120000) Business Reply Envelopes ($0.07 *12000)

$10,636

Total Direct $18,284

Total Indirect $1,646

Total Cost $19,930

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. 140-149. < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0023-7639%28199005%2966%3A2%3C140%3ASAAHRA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2>.

Hundley, Norris. 2001. 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. 137-173. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2186%28199704%2940%3A1%3C137%3ADFEGEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1>.

Kinder, Donald R. and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1979. “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 23:495—527.

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, 2002. <www.fgn.unisg.ch/public/public.htm>.

Wilkinson, Charles. 1993. Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the Future of the West. Covelo, CA: Island Press

FULL PROPOSAL BUDGET

Year 1A. PERSONNEL

Research Assistant @$2684/mo30% for 9 months - academic year $7,247100% for 3 months - summer $0

Research Assistant @ $10/hour 30.00 hours for data entry $300

0 hours for other work $0

Computer Technician @$3,400/month0 months $0TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES $7,547

B. FRINGE BENEFITSResearch assistant @ 1.4% for 9 months - acad. yr $101 Research assistant @ 3% for 3 months - summer $0

Computer technician @ 37% $0 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS $101

TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES, AND FRINGE (A+B) $7,648

C. PERMANENT EQUIPMENT

Project computers, workstations, and peripherals $0TOTAL PERMANENT EQUIPMENT $0

D. TRAVEL

Research meetings (as required) $0Data collection field trips $0TOTAL TRAVEL (DOMESTIC) $0

E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS

Database of 12000 addresses ($100 plus $0.08/address): $1,060Copying Cost ($0.07/page) * 3 pages/survey * 12000 surveys $2,520Postage ($0.39 * 12000outgoing + $0.39 * 2400returning) $5,616Envelopes ($0.05 * 120000) $600Business 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

UC Davis Survey

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. Don't know

Use public transportation. Don't know

Buy organic. Don't know

Grow your own food. Don't know

Purchase recycled products. Don't know

Print on both sides of the paper. Don't know

Minimize water use while showering or brushing teeth. Don't know

Walk or ride a bike instead of driving a car, when given the choice. Don't know

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 StronglyDisagree Agree

Humans are severely abusing the environment. 1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. 1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. 1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

If I engage in environmentally friendly activities, this will encourage others to take action. 1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

Nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations. 1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

A significant number of people in my community are taking action to improve environmental quality. 1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

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.

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 StronglyDisagree Agree

The government should take a stronger role in providing health care and social services to those with lower income.

1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

Taxes should be lowered to allow larger economic investment by entrepeneurs.

1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

Labor unions exert too much control over some members of congress

1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

Bill Clinton was a very good president. 1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

Ronald Reagan was a very good president. 1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

Congress needs to encourage the president to sign the Kyoto Accord.

1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

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

For any questions regarding this survey, feel free to call 530-555-5555 or send a letter to:Nika Lapis c/o Environmental Science and Policy, 1 Shields Ave, Davis CA 95616

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 disagreeb. Slightly disagreec. Neutrald. Slightly agreee. Strongly agreef. Don’t know

If you have voted on the Peripheral Canal before, how did you vote? (circle one)

g. In support of the Canalh. In opposition of the Canali. Don’t rememberj. 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 endangered fish.

True 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

True False

A major earthquake in the Delta would cause levee breaks that would leave Southern California without any water.

True False

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 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