The Measurement of Subjective Value and Its Relation to Contingent Valuation and Environmental Public Goods

Environmental public goods—including national parks, clean air/water, and ecosystem services—provide substantial benefits on a global scale. These goods have unique characteristics in that they are typically “nonmarket” goods, with values from both use and passive use that accrue to a large number of individuals both in current and future generations. In this study, we test the hypothesis that neural signals in areas correlated with subjective valuations for essentially all other previously studied categories of goods (ventromedial prefrontal cortex and ventral striatum) also correlate with environmental valuations. We use contingent valuation (CV) as our behavioral tool for measuring valuations of environmental public goods. CV is a standard stated preference approach that presents survey respondents with information on an issue and asks questions that help policymakers determine how much citizens are willing to pay for a public good or policy. We scanned human subjects while they viewed environmental proposals, along with three other classes of goods. The presentation of all four classes of goods yielded robust and similar patterns of temporally synchronized brain activation within attentional networks. The activations associated with the traditional classes of goods replicate previous correlations between neural activity in valuation areas and behavioral preferences. In contrast, CV-elicited values for environmental proposals did not correlate with brain activity at either the individual or population level. For a sub-population of participants, CV-elicited values were correlated with activity within the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, a region associated with cognitive control and shifting decision strategies. The results show that neural activity associated with the subjective valuation of environmental proposals differs profoundly from the neural activity associated with previously examined goods and preference measures.

However, the results of the research will be shared with the relevant policy makers. It is therefore possible that your decisions will be used to inform policy, and in this sense you may incur costs in the future. We ask that you make every effort to respond exactly as you would if, for instance, you were voting on related public referenda (ballot measures).
You will now be asked to make decisions on six proposals. Before you respond, we ask that you read the presented information very carefully as you may not be familiar with the specific issues at hand. These proposals are not alternatives to one another. The chance one proposal is actually implemented does not depend on whether the others are implemented. Therefore, we ask that you please consider each proposal in isolation, and do not make decisions on one proposal based on the decisions you made on the others.

Proposal 1: GREEN POWER IN NEW YORK
New York state uses a variety of energy sources to meet its demand for electricity. "Green Power" is the portion of electricity that is produced using renewable energy sources including (but not limited to) hydropower, wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Collectively, these sources comprise about 30% of total energy use in the state. As renewable energy, Green Power produces fewer air pollutants and greenhouse gases than fossil fuel energy. The use of green power sources also helps to diversify the fuel supply, increasing the reliability of the New York State electric power system and contributing to more stable energy prices. Currently, both the state government and electrical utilities are devoting funds to increase the portion of New York's electricity that comes from Green Power. Among other efforts, these funds support research into improving renewable energy technologies, along with the construction and continued maintenance of Green Power generation facilities and associated infrastructure.

Further funding is needed to support the development of Green Power. We would like you to consider the following proposal that would, if implemented, lead to an increased portion of New York state's electricity coming from Green Power:
As part of New York's strategy for the continued expansion of Green Power sources, local utility companies might implement a program to which customers would financially contribute.
The objective of such financial support would be to increase New York's total Green Power percentage from 30% to 40% If the proposal were to pass, funding would come from a monthly, itemized addition to the utility bill of all New York ratepayers (including those who voted against the proposal). Suppose that the money collected will be managed honestly and allocated in full to increasing the state's Green Power supply. The cost of implementing this policy is at present not certain. Because of this, we are asking you about several possible cost amounts. When the cost of implementing the proposal is known, the policymaker will be able to look at the votes associated with the actual cost and use this information to help make a policy decision.
What is your vote on the proposal, given that passage of the proposal would cost you these amounts per month? (Please indicate a Y or N response for each amount by clicking on the desired response).

What is your vote on the proposal, given that passage of the proposal would cost you these amounts per month? (Please indicate a Y or N response for each amount by clicking on the desired response).
As part of New York's strategy for the continued restoration of the Bronx River Watershed, local utility companies might implement a program to which customers would financially contribute.
The objective of such financial support would be to ensure the restoration of 2/3 of the wetlands currently surrounding the Bronx River. If the proposal were to pass, funding would come from a monthly, itemized addition to the utility bill of all New York ratepayers (including those who voted against the proposal). Suppose that the money collected will be managed honestly and allocated in full to restoring the Bronx River Watershed. The cost of implementing this policy is at present not certain. Because of this, we are asking you about several possible cost amounts. When the cost of implementing the proposal is known, the policymaker will be able to look at the votes associated with the actual cost and use this information to help make a policy decision.

Proposal 3: HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN NEW YORK
Fracking (short for hydraulic fracturing) is a drilling technique that involves injecting chemicals, sand, and water under high pressure directly into the ground to extract natural gas in shale deposits. The injected mixture of chemicals and sediment, along with any natural gas released, may leak to the surface and flow into rivers and groundwater in the process or enter water supplies if the wastewater is disposed of in water treatment plants. Fracking can also release smog-forming and toxic air pollutants, as well as greenhouse gases, into the air. Out of concern for the potential effects of fracking, New York state has commissioned a health impact assessment to aid in its decision about what sorts of regulations to impose on the fracking industry. The technique has just recently become common and the understanding of the full scope of its effects is still incomplete, but scientists are concerned about its potential effects on air and water quality. New York has imposed a temporary moratorium on fracking but is considering allowing fracking to take place in the state.

Further funding is needed to support a program that the utility companies have implemented to allow ratepayers to pay an additional fee to avoid using natural gas extracted via fracking. We would like you to consider the following proposal that would, if implemented, lead to the replacement of fracking as an active drilling method:
As part of New York's strategy for the continued development and expansion of environmental assets, local utility companies might implement a program to which customers would financially contribute. The utility companies would utilize the funding to develop energy sources other than fracking (either renewable energy sources or other, less invasive drilling techniques for natural gas). The funding would prevent 300 new fracking sites from opening in New York per year. If the proposal were to pass, funding would come from a monthly, itemized addition to the utility bill of all New York ratepayers (including those who voted against the proposal). Suppose that the money collected will be managed honestly and allocated in full to decreasing the number of active fracking sites. The cost of implementing this policy is at present not certain. Because of this we are asking you about several possible cost amounts. When the cost of implementing the proposal is known, the policymaker will be able to look at the votes associated with the actual cost and use this information to help make a policy decision.

What is your vote on the proposal, given that passage of the proposal would cost you these amounts [in a one--time payment?] (Please indicate a Y or N response for each amount by clicking on the desired response).
As part of New York's strategy for the protection of rural land, local utility companies, in collaboration with local environmental organizations, might implement a program to which customers would financially contribute. The utility companies would use this financial support to fund the purchase of a conservation easement that would stop the development of the proposed resort on the old--growth forest in the Western Catskills. If the proposal were to pass, funding would come from a one-time, itemized addition to the utility bill of all New York ratepayers (including those who voted against the proposal). Suppose that the money collected will be managed honestly and allocated in full to preserving the landscape in the Western Catskills. The cost of implementing this policy is at present not certain. Because of this we are asking you about several possible cost amounts. When the cost of implementing the proposal is known, the policymaker will be able to look at the votes associated with the actual cost and use this information to help make a policy decision.

Proposal 5: PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES Green Turtle
Olive Ridley Turtle There are seven species of sea turtles worldwide, two of which are green turtles and olive ridley turtles. The populations of both species of turtles have declined substantially. In the past 100 to 150 years, the number of mature nesting green turtle females has declined by 48 to 65 percent, and the number of mature nesting olive ridley turtle females has declined by 50 percent since 1960. The turtles are threatened by accidental capture in fishing gear, degradation of nesting beaches, disease, and human harvesting of eggs and turtles. Several policies have been implemented in the United States to protect sea turtles, including changes to fishing and shrimp harvesting practices to reduce sea turtle bycatch. Since 1989, the United States has banned shrimp imports from countries that do not protect sea turtles if turtles in those countries are at threat of extinction.

Sea turtles benefit from international treaties and agreements, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) and the Inter--American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC).
Further financial support is needed for the enforced protection of sea turtles. We would like you to consider the following proposal that would, if implemented, lead to the continued protection of these two species of sea turtles: As part of a nationwide strategy for the continued protection of sea turtles, local utility companies, in collaboration with several conservation agencies, might implement a program to which customers would financially contribute. The utility companies would use this financial support to donate to organizations that would ensure the preservation of at least 10,000 actively monitored sea turtles. If the proposal were to pass, funding would come from a monthly, itemized addition to the utility bill of all New York ratepayers (including those who voted against the proposal). Suppose that the money collected will be managed honestly and allocated in full to protecting sea turtles. The cost of implementing this policy is at present not certain. Because of this we are asking you about several possible cost amounts. When the cost of implementing the proposal is known, the policymaker will be able to look at the votes associated with the actual cost and use this information to help make a policy decision.
What is your vote on the proposal, given that passage of the proposal would cost you these amounts per month? (Please indicate a Y or N response for each amount by clicking on the desired response).

Further funding is needed to support the progress of the cleanup. We would like you to consider the following proposal that would, if implemented, lead to the continued remediation of the Gowanus Canal:
What is your vote on the proposal, given that passage of the proposal would cost you these amounts per month? (Please indicate a Y or N response for each amount by clicking on the desired response).
As part of New York's strategy for the continued remediation of the Gowanus Canal, local utility companies, in collaboration with the EPA, might implement a program to which customers would financially contribute. The utility companies would use this financial support to fund the clean up of 10% of the contamination at the Gowanus Canal per year. If the proposal were to pass, funding would come from a monthly, itemized addition to the utility bill of all New York ratepayers (including those who voted against the proposal). Suppose that the money collected will be managed honestly and allocated in full to remediating the Gowanus Canal. The cost of implementing this policy is at present not certain. Because of this we are asking you about several possible cost amounts. When the cost of implementing the proposal is known, the policymaker will be able to look at the votes associated with the actual cost and use this information to help make a policy decision.