Chemical water pollution – public opinion andChemical water pollution public opinion and willingness to pay

Tuesday 15th November 2016 – Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation, Edinburgh, UKJoel Atherton – j.p.atherton@lse.ac.uk

Aims of the Project

1. Attitudes towards chemical water pollution (local and far-reaching pollutants)

2. The value of reducing chemicals from water

3. Public opinion on management options

Methods Rationale

1. Public Deliberative Dialogue

Deliberative (i.e. over time) participatory engagement where the outcomes are used to inform decision‐making’ (RCUK 2012)inform decision making (RCUK, 2012)

2. Stated Preference Techniques

“EU citizens… …cite chemical pollution as the biggest threat to water resources.” (EC E b 2012)Eurobarometer, 2012)

Existing Literature1. Deliberative Approach/Public Dialogue(Dryzek 2000; Gastil and Richards 2013; Habermas 1990; Newig 2012; Rawls 1971; Sciencewise & BIS 2016)

“Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens” – Principle 10, 1992 Rio Declaration

2 Citi ’ J M k t St ll S i l V l /N2. Citizens’ Jury, Market Stall, Social Values/Norms(Alvarez-Farizo et al. 2007; Kenyon et al. 2003; Spash 2008)

“Opportunity for social learning” Kenter et al 2015“Opportunity for social learning” Kenter et al. 2015

3. Scope/Embedding Effects(Carson 1997; Desvousges et al 2012; Hultkrantz et al 2006; Kahneman 1986; Quinton et al 2013)(Carson 1997; Desvousges et al. 2012; Hultkrantz et al. 2006; Kahneman 1986; Quinton et al. 2013)

“We have no clear prior expectation about what a ‘correct’ answer should be” (Bateman 2011)

Methods Overview

TimelineTimeline

Deliberative workshops

Survey design process

Deliberative Workshop Methods

• Location, Recruitment and FacilitatorsFacilitators

• Workshop Design and Topics:

Day one: Concerns, Awareness, Burden of cost, Responsibility and communication, U t i tUncertainty

Day two: Fixing the Problem, Local vs Far-Reaching Pollution Your Water BillsReaching Pollution, Your Water Bills, Management options, A Global Problem, Sharing the Costs

SP Survey Methods

• Survey Design and Structure

• Distribution

Survey Type Observations Chemical Type & Splits

DBDC (& Logit) CV 1,203 Local pollution reduction(10-5% and 10-0% surface waters)(10 5% and 10 0% surface waters)

4A Choice Experiment 1,143 Persistents and flame retardantreduction (% surface waters, time horizon and uncertainty)horizon and uncertainty)

Basic Combined AL 2,959 Both

SP Survey Structure

1. Attitudes, knowledge and gbehaviour

2. Education

3 SP Scenario3. SP Scenario

4. Socioeconomic questionsq

Far-Reaching Chemicals Survey (Visual Aids)

Far-Reaching Chemicals Survey (Visual Aids)

Far-Reaching Chemicals Survey (CE example)

Results (Public Dialogue Workshop) I97% of participants said the information used was fair and balanced

4 out of 5 participants were prepared to pay something (£) to reduce chemical water pollution4 out of 5 participants were prepared to pay something (£) to reduce chemical water pollution

Those who were happy to pay said things like:

• “We all need to take more responsibility for [chemical] pollution”• “The environment and wildlife are suffering because of human actions”• “We need to spend more to control [chemical] pollution”

Those who were not happy to pay said things like:

• “I already pay water bills, and companies profit from that”• “Responsibility should be with the water companies”• “The water companies should pay”

Results (Public Dialogue Workshop) II

Consensus opinions included:

1. There is a need to raise public awareness (through a variety of means)

2 Both ‘source control’ and ‘end-of-pipe’ treatment should be used where possible2. Both source control and end-of-pipe treatment should be used, where possible

3. Key components of importance include: damage to humans/wildlife, visibility of the bl d k l d b iproblem and knowledge about it

4. UK has high responsibility for cleaning up persistent chemical pollution

Results (Public Dialogue Workshop) III

Other popular thoughts:

5. Importance of local vs far-reaching pollution was mixed

6 Strong public interest but sense of powerlessness6. Strong public interest, but sense of powerlessness

7. Financial responsibility of water companies (and product manufacturers)

8. There is a shared responsibility

Results (Local Pollutants SP Survey)

Logit and Double Bound Dichotomous Choice (DBDC) models

Coefficient signs and significance were generally as expected

The final DBDC model (14 control variables) produced a highly statistically significant estimate:The final DBDC model (14 control variables) produced a highly statistically significant estimate:

Mean WTP figure of £93.76 (P<0.001) household-1 yr-1, for increasing the number of s rface aters free from metal poll tionsurface waters free from metal pollution from the baseline of 90% up to 95-100%.

95% confidence interval = £73.27–114.24

Results (Far-Reaching Pollutants SP Survey)

Basic Conditional Logit (Choice Experiment) model

Coefficient signs performed as expected (all statistically significant), examples:

• 10% increase in surface water cover = x1.15 more likely to choose scenario option

• Reduce clean-up time from ≥ 50 years to 30 years = x3.15 more likely to choose scenario option

Trade-offs exist, example:

• 10 years time reduction ≈ 20% surface water cover increase

Results (Far-Reaching Pollutants SP Survey)

The basic Condition Logit model produced highly statistically significant example estimates (ignoring scientific certainty attribute)

• Mean WTP figure of £106.90 (P<0.001) household-1

1 f f h h l f

estimates (ignoring scientific certainty attribute):

yr-1, for removing far-reaching chemicals from 30% surface waters in 30 years

• Mean WTP figure of £168.15 (P<0.001) household-1

yr-1, for removing far-reaching chemicals from 50% y , g gsurface waters in 20 years

Further Findings

1. Local vs far-reaching pollutantsg p

2. Social Norms treatment

3. Scope/Part-whole effect

4. Issues for feeding into CBAs and future planningfuture planning

Conclusions

• Chemical water pollution is considered important and more environmental protection would be supported –p pppeople care

• Awareness Raising (including at household level)• Awareness Raising (including at household level)

• Sharing Costs

• Distinguishing between local and far-reaching pollutants

• Scope insensitivity

Future Work

• Estimate change in WTP over time

• Bottom-up design of SP studies (via public deliberation)

• Distinguishing between different chemical water pollutants (inc pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc)

– the limits of SP and rise of Public Dialogue?

• Larger Public Dialogue work, over more time and in more depth

Thank YouThank You

Tuesday 15th November 2016 – Joel Atherton – j.p.atherton@lse.ac.uk