**5. Discussion**

Striking outcome of our survey results is that, against our expectations, no clear differences in the results were found compared with earlier surveys about stated WTP values of forests. All of the results are more or less in line with previous findings about values for environmental goods [20, 55]. This is especially interesting, since in this case nearly exclusively existence values are of relevance, whereas the other cited surveys mostly consider also direct use values. Kriström [56] found that respondents who expressed only a use motive stated a higher WTP on average than respondents stating only a non-use motive. Those who expressed both, use and non-use motives, stated the highest WTP. Since the stated values here are quite similar to those of the other cases described in the literature review section, this may be seen as an indicator for the existence of a premium for a symbolic value on top of already known non-use values. The variable with the highest impact on the WTP was income, which can be interpreted as an indicator for reliability of the stated amounts [57]. However, in contrast to most other surveys about environmental goods, this time only passive-use values

were of relevance. Further, the area of the Hambach Forest is rather small compared with other woods and forests evaluated so far. Thus, WTP values referring to the area lead to an exceptionally high value compared with previous surveys [20] based on passive-use values only. There is a long-lasting discussion about the sensitivity of scope in contingent valuation surveys [55, 58–65]. Inconsistencies are quite often a result of a lack of spatial sense: only a minority has a clear image of, e.g., 10,000 ha or 50,000 cormorants. However, in cases where existence values dominate over use values, scope is usually of minor relevance for the stated WTP [61, 63]. Lindhjem [35] found in a meta-analysis of Scandinavian WTP surveys for woods and forests only minor scope effects, whereas he argues that woods and forests are complex environmental goods, and simplified indicators such as area size or percentage may not easily capture their scope. Hjerpe et al. [63], in contrast, found that individuals are typically sensitive to the scope of ecosystem service provision, in both quality and quantity. Also Ojea and Loureiro [65] found that CV results are sensitive to the scope of the good being valued, but the results depend on how the environmental change is measured: absolute sizes are preferable over relative ones. Further, Barrio and Loureiro [55] found out that, among others, recreational aspects play an important role for the WTP of people for the preservation of forests. It is therefore possible that the following two effects might have led to "normal" WTP values in our case: the nearly total absence of direct use values might have lowered the WTP for the Hambach Forest, whereas the threat of a drastic change in form of a complete annihilation might have had an opposite effect. Further, the already mentioned symbolic value is reflected in the stated WTP values.

Regarding the results from the regression analyses, the remarkable difference in the rate of explained variance is astonishing: while the decision to be willing to pay or not could reach an acceptable level of explained variance by a regression model, the explained variance for the stated amount remained on a low level. This means that some underlying factors seem to exist, which are not covered by the survey. Imaginable are attitudes toward the procedure of the policy administration in this case, which initiated a strong and disproportionate police operation, in which the Hambach Forest should be freed from occupants and thus also be prepared for a quick clearance, in case of need. Another possible explanation may be a considerable rate of protest responses in our survey. Furthermore, in the view of parts of the population, RWE is often portrayed as voracious based on the fact that it is responsible for having already effaced the largest part of the Hambach Forest and for planning to annihilate it completely. Therefore, the will to contribute to a fund, which prevents the complete annihilation of the forest, may also result from a desire to stop RWE in following its operating plan. The concern of climate change and its mitigation may have played an additional role, since 2018 and 2019 were the first and the third hottest year in Germany since the beginning of the weather recordkeeping. Furthermore, this development was accompanied by the Fridays for Future movement initiated by Greta Thunberg and may thus also have contributed to the wish to combat climate change. Altogether, an interplay of different influencing factors on an individual basis seems to have led to the rather low level of explained variance of the stated WTP values.

### **6. Conclusions**

We conducted a representative CV survey within the German population in order to find out whether there is a symbolic value of the Hambach Forest. It is a remarkable statement for the preservation of the Hambach Forest that at least 47% of the

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

respondents stated a positive WTP, considering that the forest does not provide any direct use values to almost all of the surveyed people. The mean value of the positive WTP was rather high with 55.08€, whereas the standard deviation of the stated values with about 76€ indicates considerable differences regarding attitude and estimation toward the Hambach Forest. Due to the almost complete absence of use values, the stated WTP can be seen as a premium for the existence of the Hambach Forest and as a vote against political decisions regarding lignite mining operation, climate protection, and the acceptance of coal fired power plants, as our regression analyses showed. Further, since the Hambach Forest provides nearly exclusively passive use values, and the WTP values are at least at the same level as in previous surveys with larger forests comprising also direct use values, this can be considered an indication for a premium for its symbolic value. Not least the strong media coverage with very different views reflects the broad spectrum of attitudes toward the Hambach Forest. People who are trying to act more environmentally benign also were significantly more likely to be willing to pay for the preservation of the Hambach Forest. Furthermore, their attitudes toward renewable energies were significantly more positive compared with those without a positive WTP. The symbolic status of the Hambach Forest can be characterized by opposites. For those who rather support the protests, the contrasts might be nature—destruction, climate protection—climate catastrophe, small (population)—big (RWE and provincial government), commons/common welfare—greed/ profit. For those who are rather critical toward the protests, the case may represent the defense of jobs, welfare, law, and order against chaos, cadgers, and violent anarchists. Thus, a stated positive WTP can be an indicator for the self-identification of the respondents, whereas due to the unknown rate of protest zeros, the opposite is not so easy to state. A more in-depth analysis would be needed in order to answer the question about the motives of the respondents more profoundly.

Through our survey, we were able to show that the Hambach Forest holds a high valuation among the German population, which is nearly exclusively based on non-use values only, in which a premium for its symbolic value might be included. Considering the results of the CV question and bearing in mind that there is probably a non-negligible proportion of protest zeros, the valuation of the forest as a symbol against climate change is remarkable and should be considered in future political decisions. Especially for the background of the European Green Deal, which means that the European Union aims to become the world's first "climate-neutral bloc" by 2050, these values might be understood as a hint for people's support of an ambitious environmental and climate policy.
