Table 3. Statistical analysis for WTA....

Table 3.

Statistical analysis for WTA. Two-part model

	WTA – first part (Prob WTA = 0)	WTA – second part (WTA > 0)
	WTA Marginal effects (SE)¹	Marginal effects (SE) High WTA²	Marginal effects (SE) Medium WTA³	Marginal effects (SE) Low WTA⁴
(a) Without considering “zero protest” responses
Female	−0.006 (0.046)	0.017 (0.026)	0.000 (0.003)	−0.017 (0.026)
Age (medium)	0.211 (0.067)***	−0.012 (0.030)	−0.000 (0.002)	0.012 (0.030)
Age (high)	0.146 (0.059)***	−0.032 (0.037)	−0.000 (0.005)	0.032 (0.037)
Granada	−0.158 (0.049)***	0.145 (0.032)***	0.001 (0.026)	−0.145 (0.032)***
Severe burden	−0.159 (0.049)***	0.007 (0.026)	0.000 (0.001)	−0.007 (0.027)
High caregiving hours	0.143 (0.047)***	0.047 (0.026)*	0.000 (0.008)	−0.047 (0.026)*
High HRQoL	−0.006 (0.052)	–	–	–
Medium education	−0.015 (0.064)	0.053 (0.036)	0.000 (0.009)	−0.053 (0.037)
High education	−0.018 (0.065)	0.091 (0.037)**	0.000 (0.016)	−0.091 (0.038)**
High social support	–	0.052 (0.031)*	0.000 (0.009)	−0.052 (0.031)*
	N = 520 LR Chi² = 58.85 R² = 0.0824 McFadden’s Adj R²: 0.054 Cragg–Uhler (Nagelkerke) R²: 0.143	N = 291 LR Chi² = 38.05 R² = 0.1025 McFadden’s Adj R²: 0.043 Cragg–Uhler (Nagelkerke) R²: 0.170

	WTA – first part(Prob WTA = 0)	WTA – second part(WTA > 0)
	WTAMarginal effects (SE)¹	Marginal effects (SE)High WTA²	Marginal effects (SE)Medium WTA³	Marginal effects (SE)Low WTA⁴
(a) Without considering “zero protest” responses
Female	−0.006 (0.046)	0.017 (0.026)	0.000 (0.003)	−0.017 (0.026)
Age (medium)	0.211 (0.067)***	−0.012 (0.030)	−0.000 (0.002)	0.012 (0.030)
Age (high)	0.146 (0.059)***	−0.032 (0.037)	−0.000 (0.005)	0.032 (0.037)
Granada	−0.158 (0.049)***	0.145 (0.032)***	0.001 (0.026)	−0.145 (0.032)***
Severe burden	−0.159 (0.049)***	0.007 (0.026)	0.000 (0.001)	−0.007 (0.027)
High caregiving hours	0.143 (0.047)***	0.047 (0.026)*	0.000 (0.008)	−0.047 (0.026)*
High HRQoL	−0.006 (0.052)	–	–	–
Medium education	−0.015 (0.064)	0.053 (0.036)	0.000 (0.009)	−0.053 (0.037)
High education	−0.018 (0.065)	0.091 (0.037)**	0.000 (0.016)	−0.091 (0.038)**
High social support	–	0.052 (0.031)*	0.000 (0.009)	−0.052 (0.031)*
	N = 520LR Chi² = 58.85R² = 0.0824McFadden’s Adj R²: 0.054Cragg–Uhler (Nagelkerke) R²: 0.143	N = 291LR Chi² = 38.05R² = 0.1025McFadden’s Adj R²: 0.043Cragg–Uhler (Nagelkerke) R²: 0.170

	WTA – first part (Prob WTA = 0)	WTA – second part (WTA > 0)
	WTA Marginal effects (SE)¹	Marginal effects (SE) High WTA²	Marginal effects (SE) Medium WTA³	Marginal effects (SE) Low WTA⁴
(b) Predicted “zero protest” values were considered
Female	0.002 (0.044)	0.007 (0.023)	0.000 (0.001)	−0.007 (0.023)
Age (medium)	0.158 (0.065)**	−0.032 (0.032)	−0.000 (0.004)	0.025 (0.032)
Age (high)	0.113(0.057)*	−0.007 (0.027)	−0.000 (0.001)	0.007 (0.027)
Granada	−0.142 (0.046)***	0.123 (0.026)***	0.002 (0.023)	−0.125 (0.028)***
Severe burden	−0.154 (0.046)***	0.034 (0.022)	0.000 (0.006)	−0.034 (0.022)
High caregiving hours	0.171 (0.042)***	0.050 (0.028)*	0.008 (0.009)	−0.051 (0.028)*
High HRQoL	−0.002 (0.049)	–	–	–
Medium education	−0.005 (0.060)	0.010 (0.023)	0.000 (0.001)	−0.010 (0.023)
High education	−0.036 (0.060)	0.050 (0.031)	0.000 (0.009)	−0.051 (0.032)
High social support	–	0.077 (0.032)**	0.001 (0.014)	−0.079 (0.033)*
	N = 562 LR Chi² = 57.80 R² = 0.0760 McFadden’s Adj R²: 0.050 Cragg–Uhler (Nagelkerke) R²: 0.132	N = 333 LR Chi² = 36.69 R² = 0.0945 McFadden’s Adj R²: 0.038 Cragg–Uhler (Nagelkerke) R²: 0.152

Notes:

First part outcome: “1” whether WTA = 0, “0” whether WTA > 0; second part Outcome: only positive values for WTA; ²WTA > 15; ³5<WTA<=15. ⁴0<WTA≤5. High HRQL >0.85 points. Severe burden with Zarit score ≥55 points; N (%); *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05 and ***p < 0.01

Source: Authors’ own

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable