# Presentation: 096314

## Assessing Public Environmental ValuesSurvey Methods

**EPA/SAB                     C-VPEES                April 12,  2005**

**Terry C. Daniel                                                Department of Psychology and                 School of Natural Resources              University of Arizona**

## Preference-based Values

**Held Values**
***“******...enduring conceptions of the preferable”***
**Assigned Values**
***“******Relative importance or ‘worth’ of a particular object in a particular context”***

***Brown, 1984***

## “Traditional” Model

**“****Traditional” Model**

***Assigned***
***Value***

**Expressed Preferences**

***Held Values***

***Perception***

**Environmental Conditions**

## Values and Expressed Preferences

**Environment**

**Preferences**

**Held Values**

***Verbal description***

***Verbal response***

***Verbal label***

***choice***

***Data / graphics ***

***w- t - p***

***Photo ***

***Rating***

***Virtual reality ***

***Clicks & joy sticks***

**Traditional view**

## “Radical” Model

**“****Radical” Model**

***Assigned***
***Value***

**Expressed Preferences**

***Held Values***

***Perception/Affect***

**Environmental Conditions**

**CONTEXT**

## Socio-psychological assessments

**Essentially parallel to economic “stated preference” methods**
**Preferences (judgments) expressed as choices, rankings or ratings—not w-t-p $**
**Value metrics include *****importance*****, *****liking*****, *****preference*****, *****acceptance***** (rarely dollars)**
**Under-informed, undeliberated, irrational public response to policies/outcomes**
**Relative, multidimensional and contextual**

## Survey Method Issues

**Target**
**Specific actions, outcomes or general policies**
**Means, ends, equity issues, institutional **
**Constituencies**
**General public, local communities, “stakeholders”**
**Acting for self, household, nation, humanity**
**Representations**
**Verbal (descriptions, labels), graphic, multi-media, direct/on-site**

## Survey Method Issues  2

**Contact**
**Mail, telephone, face-to-face (intercept, home, work)**
**Expressions**
**Preferences, knowledge, beliefs, intensions, attitudes, acceptance**
**Open and/or closed (choices, ratings, allocations)**
**Analysis**
**Factor analysis, multiple-regression, causal models**
**Items => factors (conceptual attributes)**
**Respondents => types (dispositions/biases)**

## Survey Methods

_**Multi-item survey**_
**Distinct verbal statements**
**Closed responses (ratings)**
**Mail, telephone, face-to-face, internet**
_**Conjoint**_** **
**Multi-dimensional scenarios (designed)**
**Verbal descriptions/stories**
**Choice and/or rating responses**

## Survey Methods  2

_**Perceptual Survey**_
**Visual or multi-media representations**
**Conjoint or part of conjoint**
**Closed responses**
**Mail, face-to-face, internet**
_**Behavior Observation**_** **
**Traces, diaries, registrations, monitoring (cameras, step pads, etc), direct observation**
**“****Revealed preferences”**

## Multi-item Verbal Survey

**USDA Forest Service**
**GPRA, Strategic Plan (Shields et al 2002)**
**Telephone survey (n = 7,000+)**
**Values, Objectives, Beliefs & Attitudes**
**30 items each (overlapping)**
**Each respondent gets subset**
**5-point rating scales (agree, importance, favor)**

## Theory of Planned Behavior

**Environmental Conditions**

**Beliefs**

**Attitudes**

**Intentions**

***Social Norms***

**Behavior**

***Control***

***Rational model***

## Values

**2. Natural resources must be preserved even if people must do without some products.**
**Strongly ****	****	****	****	****	****	****Strongly **
**disagree ****	****1 ****	****2 ****	****3 ****	****4 ****	****5 ****	****agree**
**15. Forests have a right to exist for their own sake, regardless of human concerns and uses.**
**19. The most important role for the public lands is providing jobs and income for local people.**

## Objectives

**5. Developing new paved roads on forests and grasslands for access for cars and recreational vehicles.**
**Not at all ****	****	****	****	****	****	****Very**
**important ****	****1 ****	****2 ****	****3 ****	****4 ****	****5 ****	****important**
**9. Protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitats.**
**26. Making management decisions concerning the use of forests and grasslands at the local level rather than at the national level.**

## Beliefs

**5. Developing new paved roads on forests and grasslands for access for cars and recreational vehicles.**
**Strongly  ****	****	****	****	****	****	****Strongly **
**disagree ****	****1 ****	****2 ****	****3 ****	****4 ****	****5 ****	****agree**
**8. Preserving the natural resources of forests and grasslands through such policies as no timber harvesting or no mining.**
**25. Allowing for diverse uses of forests and grasslands such as grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat.**

## Attitudes

**5. Developing new paved roads on forests and grasslands for access for cars and recreational vehicles.**
**Very ****	****	****	****	****	****	****	****Very**
**unfavorable 1 ****	****2 ****	****3 ****	****4 ****	****5 ****	****favorable**
**9. Protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitats.**
**22. Informing the public on the economic value received by developing our natural resources.**

## Results

**Demographics**
**East vs West x Metro vs non-metro **
**Familiarity with USFS**
**“****Factual questions” (*****FS sets hunting regulations*****)**
**Mean rating per VOBA item **
**Factors (composed item-response patterns)**
**Socially Responsible Individual Values**
**4.16 out of 5.0 (5.0 = biocentric)**
**Socially Responsible Management Values**
**2.94 out of 5.0 (5.0 = develop/consume)**

## Conclusions

**Re: preservation/conservation:**** **
** **
**“ ... **_**important**_** objectives for the public are the preservation of natural resources through policies that restrict commodity uses, protection of ecosystems and wildlife habitat, and preservation of the ability to enjoy a “wilderness” experience. A **_**somewhat important**_** objective is the preservation of local cultural uses.**

## Conjoint Example 

**USDA Forest Service **
**Wildfire risk management (Kneeshaw et al 2004; University cooperative research)**
**Forests near Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles**
**3 different fire histories**
**Direct contact (2706) => mail survey (1288)**
**3 policies (suppress, control, let-burn)**
**Rate *****Acceptability***** (7-points, -3 to 0 to +3)**

## Conjoint Scenarios

**Five attributes (dimensions), 2 levels each**
**Origin of fire (lightning vs. humans-unintentional **
**Impact on air quality (none vs. poor air quality)**
**Risk of private property damage (low vs. high)**
**Forest recovery (quick vs. many years)**
**Recreation Impact (remain open vs. closed)**

**Fractional Factorial Design**
**Main effects tests only **
**=> 8 Scenarios**
**Regression coefficients for each dimension**

## Conjoint Scenarios

**Least Accepted Scenario (let-burn policy)**
**Human-caused fire**
**Poor air quality**
**High risk of private property damage **
**Many years for forest to recover**
**Recreation areas closed for the season**

**Most Accepted  Scenario (let-burn policy)**
**Lightening-caused fire**
**No affect on air quality**
**Low risk of private property damage **
**Rapid recovery of forest**
**Recreation areas remain open**

## Conjoint Results

** ****Acceptance of Let-burn Policy**
**  **_**%**_** ****	****	**_**Attribute of Fire**_
**  ****16****	****	****Origin of fire **
**  ****18****	****	****Impact on air quality **
**  ****26****	****	****Risk of private property damage **
**  ****23****	****	****Forest recovery **
**  ****16****	****	****Recreation Impact**

## Perceptual Survey Example

**University research—USFS sponsored**
**Northwest Forest Plan (spotted owl)**
**57 nominal interest groups in NW span *****preservation***** to *****production***** (Ribe 2002)**
**Direct contact, 1120 respondents, in groups**
**Verbal questions re: policy attitudes**
**115 color slides ranging from fresh large clear-cuts to pristine forest**

## Verbal/Attitude Component

**I believe the northern spotted owl is not threatened with extinction.**
**Strongly ****	****	****	****	****	****	****Strongly **
**disagree ****	****1 ****	****2 ****	****3 ****	****4 ****	****5 ****	****agree**
**I believe the northern spotted owl should be saved even at a high economic cost.**

**Cluster analysis to yield 3 distinct, coherent groups:**
***Productionists***
***Unaligned***
***Protectionists***

## Perceptual Component

**Independent groups (******** random assignment)**
***Scenic Beauty***** (11 point scale)**
** ****-5 (very ugly) to +5 (very beautiful)**
***Acceptability***** (as National Forest condition)**
**-5 (very unacceptable) to +5 (very acceptable)**
***Apply knowledge & sensibilities re: NF management***

## Perceptual Results

**115 Forest Scenes (ordered by mean rating)**

**Mean Rating**

**-3**

**All Respondents (*****& ************ each group)***

**+5**

**Scenic beauty**

**Acceptability**

***In the spirit of the results***

## Perceptual Results

**115 Forest Scenes (ordered by mean rating)**

**Mean Rating**

**-5**

**Acceptability: comparison**

**+5**

**Productionists**

**Unaligned**

***In the spirit of the results***

**Protectionists**