Abstract Is the general public of the UK willing to financially support environmental organizations that adopt disruptive tactics (museum and art gallery protests, sporting event disruptions, and traffic stoppages), as opposed to orthodox tactics (litigation, lobbying, and research and education)? Using a conjoint choice experiment (N = 1,023), we asked respondents’ willingness to donate £25 to hypothetical environmental organizations that differ in terms of (1) advocacy tactics, (2) share of revenue toward administrative overheads, (3) representation of women on their boards, (4) organizational age, (5) organizational size, (6) number of volunteers, and (7) revenue from citizen donations. We find respondents’ willingness to donate diminishes when organizations adopt disruptive tactics. These results hold across party preferences, ideology, generation, location, and environmental policy attitudes. Further, respondents are willing to donate organizations that rely on public donations, have low overheads, are supported by volunteer labor, and provide representation to women on their boards.
Read full abstract