**1. Introduction**

In the late summer of 2018, the Hambacher Forst (Hambach Forest) in Germany appeared prevalently in the media covering the strong protests against the intention of the utility company Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk AG (RWE) to grub large parts of the remaining forest in order to mine the lignite underneath. Up to 50,000 people from across Germany as well as neighboring countries gathered for protest marches in order to save the forest and express their position against lignite mining and to demand more political action regarding climate protection. The grubbing was suspended when in October 2018 the Higher Regional Court of Munster issued a provisional stop until there was going to be a decision as to whether the Hambach Forest falls into a category of the Habitats Directive.1 This was an option since the forest is habitat to 13 species considered in the Directive, among them the Bechstein's bat (*Myotis bechsteinii*) and eight other bat species, two species of toad, the agile frog (*Rana dalmatina*), and the endangered common dormouse (*Muscardinus avellanarius*). In January 2020, following the recommendations of a caucus, the German government decided to phase out coal power by 2038 at the latest and to preserve the Hambach Forest [2]. Despite this decision, however, scientists expect the forest to be endangered if RWE upholds its plans to continue grubbing in the coming years, thus requiring the further lowering of groundwater (lignite mining requires the lowering of the groundwater levels) and increasing temperatures caused by the declining surrounding vegetation [3]. So far, nearly 60 villages have been relocated or are in the process of relocation at present within the Rheinische Revier due to the exploitation of the lignite underneath. Considering this, the magnitude of the protests against the clearance of the Hambach forest was surprising.

Several factors seemed to be of relevance for the massive protests and the unexpected, high commitment of the population, either as participants in rallies or as debaters in social networks or the like. First, the forest on its own as an old forest and as a habitat for endangered species might be seen as valuable and irreplaceable [4]. Second, worries about climate change have gained in importance and were fostered not least by the extremely hot summer of 2018, and the increasing awareness that coal-fired power generation is among the largest sources of carbon emissions in Germany. Third, for many people, RWE turned into an enemy image, as the company has been made responsible not only for massive carbon emissions, but also for the destruction of nature and villages, despite the efforts of RWE to compensate relocated people and to re-cultivate large areas. This position, however, neglects proprietary rights, which RWE holds based on the acquisition of the Hambach Forest in 1978, operating permits, and mining rights, all negotiated with the provincial government in Dusseldorf, represented by different parties (Social Democrats, Christian Democratic Union, and Green Party). Since 1978, the size of the Hambach Forest has shrunk from 4100 ha to only about 500 ha in 2020, and since 2012, the Hambach Forest has been occupied by about 20–100 people permanently living there in self-constructed tree houses. However, the ownership based on the legal definition may be in contrast to what people perceive as legacy or moral ownership here [5]. The Hambach Forest eventually became a symbolic battleground for climate activists from Germany and other countries. Ten thousands of people have visited the Forest since, and its publicity goes well beyond the borders of Germany [4, 6, 7].

Accordingly, the Hambach Forest has become a location of "meaning," and this meaning can be attributed on vastly different scales. Such "meaning" does not manifest itself in particular physical characteristics, but is instead attributed by humans and may be closely linked to notions of identity and sense of "belonging" [5]. Only places identified as symbolic by a certain number of individuals are socially recognized as such, and a group can form and give itself an identity within this movement of recognition [8]. Most generally, a place can be considered "symbolic" whenever it contributes significantly to giving a group an identity—for example, the stadium of "their" club is something meaningful for football fans. Members of a particular scene are aware of this, and the symbolic meaning of a place is common understanding

<sup>1</sup> This is a European Directive as an EU response to the Berne convention, which intends to protect nature and wildlife. It requires national governments to specify areas that are expected to ensure the conservation of flora and fauna species [1].

*The Hambach Forest in the German Debate on Climate Protection: Is There a Symbolic Value… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101597*

among them. Accordingly, the symbolic character of a location is both, a powerful matter and a power instrument: the person who manipulates symbols can also manipulate processes of identification and thus take an influence on the constitution of the group [8]. Further, a symbolic place does not have the same meaning seen from nearby or from a distance, by a small group or by a large community, from inside or from outside, by "us" or by "others," and through time [8]. This symbolic aspect may partly explain the fierce fight over the Hambach Forest, since the topic activates the identification with either one side: following traditional rules or claiming change in order to protect nature and climate.

Against this background and given the described unusually high empathy for the forest, the question about its value for the German population arose. We therefore intended to find out whether it was possible to measure the meaning of the forest in the view of the population and to translate it into quantifiable values in order to make it comparable. These values are to represent its role in the controversial political debate on climate protection, transformation strategies, and coal phase-out in Germany. It thus may indicate the non-use and probably symbolic value of the Hambach Forest. Furthermore, stated values can also be considered as an indicator of how important the protection of the forest for single individuals is. Since no similar case is known to us so far, this study has a rather explorative character.

The structure of the paper is as follows: In section 2, we provide a literature review about valuation studies of forests. Methods and procedure are described in detail in section 3, followed by the results in section 4. This paper ends with a discussion and conclusion section.

### **2. Literature review**

In order to elucidate the values of environmental goods, several methods have been developed depending on the values to be considered. Although the importance of environmental goods to humankind has many dimensions (e.g., ecological, sociocultural, or economic), the values are usually expressed in monetary units as an important tool to raise awareness and convey the (relative) importance of ecosystems and biodiversity to policymakers [9]. Economists have recognized the possibility that individuals who make no active use of a particular forest, river, certain species, or other such natural resources may, nevertheless, derive satisfaction from their mere existence, even if they never intend to make active use of them [10–16]. This concept has come to be known as "existence value," and it is the major element of what is now referred to as "non-use" or "passive-use" values [17]. The most common methods for the evaluation of environmental goods, which comprise also non-use values, are direct methods such as the contingent valuation method (CVM) or Choice Experiments (CE). As part of these methods, individuals are presented a hypothetical scenario for which they are asked to state their willingness to pay (WTP) and/or their preferences for a change in the provision of a specific environmental good [18].

Many surveys have been carried out during the last four decades about values of sylvan ecosystems and their ecological services. However, the WTP values are hardly transferable due to several reasons: First, they are scenario-dependent. Second, WTP values normally depend on individual characteristics, such as attitudes and sociodemographic variables. Third, the values may change quite a bit over time according to circumstances [19]: for example, about 40 years ago, there were hardly any protests against the cutting of the Hambach Forest, because, on the one hand, there was

still a large part of the forest remaining, and on the other hand, climate change and the impact of coal-fired power generation were almost unknown, at least for large parts of the population. Fourth, by conducting a survey, previously unknown and/ or unexpected correlations may be revealed. Nevertheless, procedures and results of comparable studies are useful for the design and the interpretation of new surveys.

In a first step, we analyzed a database of more than 80 surveys about preferences for wooden areas applying CVM, CE, travel-cost method (TCM), or benefit transfer method (BTM) within German-speaking countries during the last three decades [20]. Most of the studies measure recreational values by directly asking for the WTP for entrance fees [21–25], or they evaluate minor changes in attributes such as the introduction of environmental protection programs by asking for additional taxes or the like [26–28]. None of the studies deal with pure existence values only, and thus, no directly comparable values could be extracted from the studies listed in the database.

In a second step, we searched the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI)2 database, which compiles environmental valuation studies from all over the world, for studies about values of woods and forests in order to find comparable studies to the case of the Hambach Forest. As search criteria, we chose "plants," since this comprised both forests and woodlands, "willingness to pay," "passive uses," and "stated preference" or "simulated market price" in order to identify comparable studies. Altogether, 182 studies were found (January 2020), of which 94 indicated "forest" as environmental asset, 88 "trees," 50 "woodland," and 16 "rainforest." Since some studies consider more than one environmental asset, overlaps occurred. After deleting those, 171 studies remained. Most of them address preferences for specific aspects such as species diversity, infrastructure, preferences for leisure activities, or forest protection schemes. In most of the studies on rain forests, the researchers surveyed the willingness to pay for the preservation of a certain minimum area. Only five studies dealt with the total value of a forest rather than values for single characteristics.

The first study in chronological order was a cost-benefit analysis about the option to log the Aorangi-Awarua-Forest in New Zealand (**Table 1**). A CV among 500 New Zealanders was conducted via mail in 1991 by Beanland [30] in order to find out whether the total economic value of the forest was higher than the revenues from logging it. The mean WTP to preserve the forest was 13.12 New Zealand \$ as a yearly payment, with 41% of the respondents willing to pay at all. This amount is comparable to roughly 10€ currently when accounting for exchange rates and inflation. However, since in this New Zealand mail survey, the return rate of questionnaires was just around 50%, and normally those who are less interested in the topic are more likely not to send back the questionnaire [35], an interpolation of the mean WTP to the total population did not appear advisable.

The second study by Kniivilä et al. [31] assessed the regional and local user and non-user benefits of the current conservation of old forests in the region of Ilomantsi/ Finland in 1999 by surveying 800 people in North Karelia. The response rate was 59.2%, the median WTP was 19€, and the mean WTP 48.6€ per person/year, which corresponds to 25€ and 65€, respectively, in 2019. The WTP values were taken by the dichotomous choice (DC) question format, which normally leads to higher WTP values [33]. However, 18.5% of the respondents chose an "I don't know" option when they were asked whether they would be willing to pay a certain amount for the preservation of the forest and were excluded from further analysis. About 45% of the

<sup>2</sup> https://www.evri.ca/, last time accessed in September [29].

*The Hambach Forest in the German Debate on Climate Protection: Is There a Symbolic Value… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101597*


#### **Table 1.**

*WTP surveys about forest areas with mainly non-use values.*

remainder had a true zero WTP. Indeed, recreational values of the evaluated forests there are non-negligible, since the forests are popular tourist destinations [31].

Amirnejad et al. [32] conducted a CV in order to estimate the existence value of north forests in Iran. By analyzing the answers from personal interviews of about 950 residents of Iran, the mean WTP for the protection of the forests was 30.12 US\$ annually (corresponding to roughly 40€ in 2020), which is quite high considering that the GDP per capita in Iran in 2004, when the interviews for this survey were conducted, was only 2500 US\$. However, the WTP values appear more valid when considering that the sample is highly biased in terms of education and income. The rate of respondents with a positive WTP is indicated with 65%, of whom 80% have already visited the north forests of Iran. The rather high mean amount can at least partly be reasoned by the survey design (talking about and showing pictures of the beauty of the forest and of future scenarios of damage) and the double-bounded DC questionnaire, and the occurrence of direct use values due to the high rate of visitors cannot be excluded. Also an interviewer effect cannot be denied, since the WTP in personal interviews usually is higher than in e-mail or mail surveys [36]. Furthermore, cultural conditions in this country may have influenced the stated WTP positively [37].

Veisten and Navrud [33] analyzed the WTP for the protection of old forests in Norway, a good nearly exclusively linked to passive-use values, using a mail survey among 2498 people in Norway conducted in 1995. The efficient total sample and overall response rate were 1792 and 71.7% respectively. According to the payment question format (open ended or dichotomous choice), estimated WTP values ranged from a mean of 20.5 US\$ to 41.6 US\$ in form of a one-time payment to the WWF's Forest Fund. This corresponds to roughly 27€ to 61€ in 2020 with a rate of positive WTP of 29–46%. With an additional invoice for the stated WTP value, this value changed to 24–37% and a mean WTP value of 5\$ to 11\$, corresponding roughly to 7€ and 14€ in 2020. These values indicate that CV values are not only sensitive to the question format, but also to the scenario setting and the payment vehicle.

Broberg [34] used contingent valuation to estimate the public benefit derived from preserving 126,000 ha of state-owned old-growth forest in the sub-mountainous region of Sweden. In this mail survey, the response rate was 49%. About 45% of the 905 respondents had a positive WTP with an average of approximately SEK 300 (35€ in 2020) for the preservation program as an annual tax increase over the next 5 years. Males were significantly less likely to hold a positive WTP, and the likelihood decreased with age for both, males and females. Education, income, and membership in any environmental NGO were correlated positively with the likelihood of observing a positive WTP.

**Table 1** provides an overview of the studies.

Although we searched broadly for comparable studies about environmental objectives with a symbolic character, besides few direct use values, we did not find any. Laplante et al. [38] surveyed the value of the Armenian lake Sevan for US American Residents with Armenian origin. They asked 6000 people about their willingness to participate in a mail survey, of which 1325 agreed to participate, but only 389 returned a completed questionnaire. The WTP was surveyed in form of DC as a one-time donation and led to a mean value between 80 US\$ and 280 US\$, which corresponds to 47€–118€ nowadays. Most significant variables for the WTP were past visits and the option of future visits of the lake. Thus, although the lake has a highly symbolic character, use values seemed to be most important for the WTP.

Even though the population of Germany is known for its love of wild forests [39, 40], there is currently no German study that explicitly addresses non-use values of forests. Compared with the studies above, the Hambach Forest is rather small given its size of only about 500 ha, and to almost all Germans, its value comprises passiveuse values only. Therefore, even though it may be ecologically valuable, it is hardly comparable to the other evaluated woods and forests from an ecological point of view. Instead, it is especially its symbolic character that makes it a highly interesting research subject that justified its evaluation. Since no comparable situation analyzed by an evaluation survey so far was found, our study is of highly explorative character.

## **3. Methods and procedure**

According to the literature review, CVM proposed itself to be the method of choice, since a high rate of existence value of the Hambach Forest was presumed for the German population. Ideally, the surveyed sample corresponds to the distribution of these variables across the basic population. In mail surveys, the sample selection bias is usually stronger than in telephone or personal inquiries [41, 42], making the latter more advisable as survey methods, although they are normally more expensive. We therefore decided to conduct the survey via telephone with strong instructions regarding the representativeness concerning age, gender, education, and place of residence (federal state). Furthermore, questions regarding attitudes toward environmental values and behavior, renewable and nonrenewable energy systems as well as political issues were included in our questionnaire.

Moreover, protest responses occur regularly in environmental valuation surveys [43]. They can be reduced by the survey design, however, since they are usually lower when voluntary payment schemes are provided [44]. As a procedure, it appeared useful in our case to contact participants personally following a random selection scheme in order to guarantee the representativeness due to the self-selection bias of online and mail surveys. Voluntary contributions to a fund seemed to be most adequate

#### *The Hambach Forest in the German Debate on Climate Protection: Is There a Symbolic Value… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101597*

as a payment vehicle for several reasons: First, because of an expectedly high rate of passive-use values, payment vehicles linked to a certain kind of use dropped out. Second, due to a high level of politicization of the issue, a rather "neutral" instrument for the protection of the forest seemed to be preferable to a tax, for example. Third, the voluntary character of the payment scenario fit better to the climate protection movement, since the latter is strongly characterized by the perception that "policy isn't doing enough to fight climate change" and that it is instead the people who need to take action now.

Therefore, the developed CV scenario was the following: "A bit over a year ago, the Hambach Forest was prevalently in the media, because it was uncertain whether vast parts of it should be cleared in favor of lignite mining and its electricity generation. Assume that a private forest conservation initiative would be founded, which relies on private donations to buy and maintain the forest, thereby preventing the lignite below it from being mined. Would you be willing to donate to such an initiative?"<sup>3</sup> If respondents answered with "yes," they were asked to indicate their hypothetical donation in Euros. Furthermore, based on the observed factors of relevance for the WTP from the literature survey, we also included questions about attitudes and habits regarding climate change, energy, and environmental issues, as well as the usual sociodemographic queries in our questionnaire.

The initial idea of our study was to conduct a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) under consideration of the use- and non-use values evaluated by the CV as well as of opportunity costs arising from the preservation of the forest for RWE and the region. The intention was to provide a rather neutral perspective on the highly politicized issue and support decision-makers in finding solutions by considering all aspects adequately. However, only four weeks after the survey was conducted in December 2019, the German government decided the early coal phase-out, also proposing that the preservation of the Hambach Forest should be guaranteed. Therefore, the focus of our analysis was broadened from the evaluation of the forest as such to the assessment of factors for a positive WTP for the Hambach Forest and the role of attitudes toward different forms of energy generation. Since the CV was part of a bigger survey about the German energy transition and the bioeconomy, questions regarding preferences for power generation technologies, methods from the field of bioeconomy as well as general attitudes regarding the environment were also included.
