The question of non-recreational values was addressed in the contingent valuation part of the questionnaire. People were asked if they were willing to pay a certain amount of money to preserve the area, whether they had visited the area or not. The options were kept simple, because the RAC claimed it was too difficult to explain various forest-management options to people in a written survey.

Several different surveys were sent out. The different surveys included different options&emdash;for example, preserving 100 per cent, 50 per cent, or 10 per cent of the area. Some surveys asked whether people would be willing to pay $2; others asked if people would be willing to pay $400; others used figures in between.

A sample survey can be seen below. This survey gives the respondent the choice of paying $400 to preserve 100 per cent of the area. People receiving different surveys were given other choices.

Each person only had one choice to make in their survey: whether they were willing to pay a particular amount of money to preserve a certain percentage of the area. The idea of doing it this way was to avoid the situation of asking people how much they would spend to save the area. The RAC thought that people might not take the time to think about it carefully, or alternatively they might exaggerate or play down the amount they were willing to pay in an attempt to bias the results. It thought it would be better to give the respondents a 'yes' or 'no' choice about whether they would be willing to pay a particular sum of money. This particular sum could be varied in different surveys, and this would give a statistical distribution of what people were willing to pay. The highest sum used was $400 per year.

The results for those given the surveys with the 100 per cent preservation option can be seen by clicking the graph button. From these figures, the RAC estimated that 50 per cent of households were willing to pay at least $43.50. However, as can be seen, it did not seem to make much difference to people whether the figure they were asked to pay was $2 or $400. The percentages of people choosing the preservation option varied little, and was more dependent on income and age than amount they were being asked to pay. People with higher incomes and younger people were more likely to choose preservation.

Various explanations could be made for this. People could have been 'voting' on the options without paying much attention to the price that they would have to pay, since they did not think they would ever have to pay it. Alternatively, most people who wanted to conserve the area were willing to pay at least $400 per year, and most people who wanted to see the area logged were unwilling to pay anything to conserve it. According to the RAC:

One explanation is that people may have already reached a preferred position on logging versus preservation and were unswayed by an opportunity to pay for their commitment. Alternatively it could take a very high price to change people's preferred option. The fact that income and age have a larger effect on people's choices between options tends to support the latter conclusion. (1992, p. U15)

The same trend was evident with the questionnaires based on saving 50 per cent or 10 per cent of the estate forests. However, the RAC estimated that half of the households were willing to spend $140 to save 50 per cent of the estate area (compared with $43.50 to save 100 per cent of the area), and half of the households were willing to spend $200 to save 10 per cent of the area. This seems very strange at first glance that people said they were willing to pay more to save less. However, it does make sense, given that more people would be in favour of saving at least 10 per cent of the area than would be in favour of saving 100 per cent; therefore, more would choose the preservation option whether the cost attached to it was $2 or $400. This would raise the average amount per household.

Such ambiguity in interpreting the results suggest that the study was not particularly useful in finding out what values people attached to preserving the area. One might even suppose that, if people had been given a choice of paying $800 or $1500, a third of them would still have chosen to do so to save the area and that would have raised the average amount considerably. This choice was not given. Instead, the survey seemed to polarise people into a position where they were weighing up jobs against the environment, or economic growth versus environmental protection.

Moreover, the wording of the survey and the information contained in it no doubt influenced people's choices. In fact, the survey was changed from its original design; when it was first tested, it seemed to be influencing people in a way the RAC did not want. The RAC was concerned that people would agree that they were willing to spend money on saving the south-east forest estate area, without considering that they might also have to spend money to save other areas and to combat other environmental problems. Because of this, the survey contained some statements about other areas of environmental damage that might also cost money. The RAC expected that these statements would reduce the amount that people were willing to spend. However, it found that people were actually willing to spend more when they read the cautionary statements. When asked why, the test respondents said they did not realise things were so bad, so they had decided they should spend more on the environment.

Back to Top...

Contingent valuation survey by Resources Assessment Commission

The Resource Assessment Commission is considering two options (A and B) for the future use of the forests in the striped areas on the map.

We are now going to ask you some questions about what you would like to see happen to the forests in the striped areas shown on the map.

We would like to know which of these options you prefer.

(Option A) Wood production

• half of the striped area would consist of streamside reserves, wildlife corridors and other conservation reserves for the protection of plants (including trees), animals, soils and streams.
• the remaining half of the striped area would be used to grow trees for wood production.
• each year a different 2 per cent of the wood producing parts of the striped area would be logged.
• after logging the forest would be allowed to regrow ready to be logged again in the future.
• the wood producing areas would have a mixture of trees ranging in age from seedlings to 80 year old trees.
• some rare and endangered species, both plants and animals, living in the forests may have their habitats disturbed by logging.
• the forests would no longer be places where little human disturbance has occurred.
• current job opportunities in the local region would be maintained.

(Option B) Conservation reserves

• the striped areas would be placed in conservation reserves.
• some parts of these forests have never been logged.
• trees in these areas would not be logged in the future.
• these forests would be places where more could be discovered about Australia's natural environment.
• the forests would have a mixture of trees of trees of different ages, ranging from seedlings to trees over 150 years old.
• these forests would continue to provide a habitat for a large range of plants and animals, some of which are rare and endangered.
• the forests would remain as places where there has been little human disturbance.
• fewer job opportunities in the local region would be available.

If you choose Option B it could cost you $400 each year.

This is because:

• with less wood being available the prices of timber products you buy, such as house frames and paper, could rise; and
• government charges you pay could be increased to pay for the conservation of the areas.

When you make your choice between Options A and B, keep in mind that there may also be other forests in Australia that you may wish to pay further money to have conserved.

Which Option do you prefer?

OPTION A (Wood production) ......................... 1

Why did you prefer Option A ?

___________________________________________________________

OPTION B (Conservation reserves) .................. 2

Why did you prefer Option B ?

____________________________________________________________

Back to Top...

Back...