|
Field
Trial Title
|
Before
Contrasting the effects of monetization of intrinsic value and instrumental value on environmentally relevant behavior
|
After
Contrasting the effects of monetization of use value and non-use value on environmentally relevant behavior
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Economic valuation is used as a tool to estimate the value of cultural and natural resources for policy, planning, and marketing purposes, but the calculation and meaning of the resulting numbers is heavily contested. Part of the conflict arises because natural and cultural resources have significant intrinsic value in addition to any instrumental, or use, value. This study is designed to contribute to the literature concerning how best to increase public support for the protection of natural resources. Specifically, this experiment sets out to determine whether or not individuals respond differently to the monetization of intrinsic and instrumental value, building upon previous work which provided evidence that individuals may be sensitive to the monetization of natural resource value.
To isolate differences in reactions to intrinsic and instrumental valuation, the average willingness to contact a representative, willingness to vote in favor of increased funding, willingness to donate, and additional dollars one would be willing to pay in taxes, is compared across four groups: (i) intrinsic only, (ii) intrinsic plus monetization of intrinsic value, (iii) instrumental only, and (iv) instrumental plus monetization of instrumental value. This survey-based experiment was conducted using a sample of 1,000 United States residents through participation in the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES).
|
After
Economic valuation is used as a tool to estimate the value of cultural and natural resources for policy, planning, and marketing purposes, but the calculation and meaning of the resulting numbers is heavily contested. Part of the conflict arises because natural and cultural resources have significant use value in addition to any non-use value. This study is designed to contribute to the literature concerning how best to increase public support for the protection of natural resources. Specifically, this experiment sets out to determine whether or not individuals respond differently to the monetization of use and non-use value, building upon previous work which provided evidence that individuals may be sensitive to the monetization of natural resource value.
Two studies are used to examine this topic. In Study 1, a survey-based experiment was conducted using a sample of 1,000 United States residents through participation in the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). To isolate differences in reactions to use and non-use valuation, the average willingness to contact a representative, willingness to vote in favor of increased funding, willingness to donate to the National Park Foundation, and additional dollars one would be willing to pay in taxes, is compared across four groups: (i) use only, (ii) use plus monetization of use value, (iii) non-use only, and (iv) non-use plus monetization of non-use value. Study 2 uses a sample of 500 United States residents recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. In this study, outcome variables are similar to those in Study 1. However, rather than rely on stated willingness to donate, actual donations to the National Park Foundation are solicited. In addition, participants are asked to spend some time writing a pledge to engage in pro-environmental behavior throughout the coming year.
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
July 31, 2017
|
After
June 30, 2017
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
February 23, 2017 05:45 PM
|
After
May 29, 2017 02:19 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Participants are randomly assigned to receive one of eight graphics. Graphics differ on the following dimensions: (i) presence of economic valuation information (Yes or No), (ii) benefit type (Intrinsic or Instrumental), and (iii) source of information (business or non-profit). The graphics serve as the primary manipulation in the study and are meant to serve as a priming and/or framing device.
|
After
Participants are randomly assigned to receive one of eight graphics. Graphics differ on the following dimensions: (i) presence of economic valuation information (Yes or No), (ii) benefit type (use or non-use), and (iii) source of information (business or non-profit). The graphics serve as the primary manipulation in the study and are meant to serve as a priming and/or framing device.
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
November 30, 2016
|
After
May 27, 2017
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Primary outcome variables for this study are: (i) willingness to contact a representative, (ii) willingness to vote for increased funding for the national park system, (iii) willingness to donate in support of America’s national parks, and (iv) additional dollars one would be willing to pay in taxes per year to protect and maintain the national parks.
Supplementary outcome variables of interest are: (1) attitudes toward: (i) the need to consider economic impacts when creating new national park and forest lands, (ii) putting monetary value on national parks, (iii) the need to preserve natural resources at any cost, (iv) the civic duty to protect national parks and forests, and (v) the rights of American children to have access to national parks, monuments, lands, and waters, (2) financial stress, and (3) feelings of obligation to others, particularly obligation to unknown others.
|
After
Primary outcome variables for Study 1 are: (i) willingness to contact a representative, (ii) willingness to vote for increased funding for the national park system, (iii) willingness to donate in support of America’s national parks, and (iv) additional dollars one would be willing to pay in taxes per year to protect and maintain the national parks.
Supplementary outcome variables of interest are: (1) attitudes toward: (i) the need to consider economic impacts when creating new national park and forest lands, (ii) putting monetary value on national parks, (iii) the need to preserve natural resources at any cost, (iv) the civic duty to protect national parks and forests, and (v) the rights of American children to have access to national parks, monuments, lands, and waters, (2) financial stress, and (3) feelings of obligation to others, particularly obligation to unknown others.
In Study 2, actual donation to the National Park Foundation replaces reported willingness to donate. An additional outcome variable is the participant's pledge to engage in pro-environmental behavior in the coming year.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
A subset of the individuals recruited by YouGov to participate in the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) will be randomly assigned to receive one of eight versions of a fictitious flyer in support of national parks. After viewing the flyer, participants are asked to report their willingness to pay additional taxes to support national parks and their willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, and to answer a few sets of attitudinal questions.
|
After
In Study 1, a subset of the individuals recruited by YouGov to participate in the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) will be randomly assigned to receive one of eight versions of a fictitious flyer in support of national parks. After viewing the flyer, participants are asked to report their willingness to pay additional taxes to support national parks and their willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, and to answer a few sets of attitudinal questions.
In Study 2, 500 individuals will be recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to engage in a similar survey experiment. In this version of the study, rather than express their willingness to donate, participants are given the chance to donate $1 of their experimental earnings to the National Park Foundation. They are also asked if they would like to write out a pledge to engage in pro-environmental behavior in the coming year.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
Randomization is automatically performed by the survey software as programmed by YouGov.
|
After
Randomization is automatically performed by the survey software as programmed by YouGov (Study 1) and Qualtrics (Study 2).
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
1,000 individuals
|
After
Study 1: 1,000 individuals
Study 2: 500 individuals
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
Numbers are approximate: 250 economic valuation & intrinsic benefit, 250 economic valuation & instrumental benefit, 250 no economic valuation & intrinsic, 250 no economic valuation & instrumental
|
After
Numbers are approximate:
Study1:
250 economic valuation & use benefit, 250 economic valuation & non-use benefit, 250 no economic valuation & use benefit, 250 no economic valuation & non-use benefit
Study 2:
125 economic valuation & use benefit, 125 economic valuation & non-use benefit, 125 no economic valuation & use benefit, 125 no economic valuation & non-use benefit
|