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