Disparate WTA-WTP disparities: the influence of human versus natural causes

Abstract

A host of studies have shown that respondents typically provide larger values reflecting their willingness to accept compensation (WTA) for the loss of a product than amounts they would be willing to pay (WTP) to acquire the same product (Knetsch and Sniden, 1984; Cummings, Brookshire, and Schulze, 1986; Irwin, 1994). Meanwhile, other evidence indicates that causes for the deterioration or the damage of a product (either human or natural) will influence both WTA and WTP (Kahneman et al., 1993; Baron and Ritov, 1992). We conducted two experiments to determine whether human‐caused versus naturally occurring events influenced disparities between WTA and WTP values. In the first experiment, residents of a Midwestern city were asked to provide WTA or WTP amounts for the removal of a street tree, either through planned city street widening or because of disease. In the second experiment, students at a large Midwestern university provided WTA and WTP amounts for two environmental scenarios: air quality and the cleanliness of a river. Results of both experiments indicate that the disparity between WTA and WTP is far greater when the damage was caused by humans. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Linking Human Destruction of Nature to COVID-19 Increases Support for Wildlife Conservation Policies

“…This is in line with both the outrage effect (Kahneman et al 1993;Bulte et al 2005;Shreedhar and Mourato 2019) and the predicted impact of responsibilizing narratives (Bénabou et al 2018). We found that the AHC narrative increased the feeling that firms and governments were responsible, but had no significant effect on personal responsibility, which is only partially in line with the responsibility effect (Walker et al 1999). One possible explanation is that people may not feel the 'burden' of personal responsibility when they are not solely responsible for an outcome and there are multiple are other parties who are also responsible (Cryder and Loewenstein 2012).…”

The impact of reimbursement negotiations on cost and availability of new pharmaceuticals: evidence from an online experiment

“…This might again be different of course in a lot of other markets for simple commodities where prices can be adjusted without governmental approval and "bad deals" bought can be resold. iv) Moral valence: Some experiments reported results that suggest, that trades triggering "moral responsibility", as well as public goods, induce higher valuation gaps [22,74,75,108,109]. In the study presented here regulators and sellers reported a different relevance of involved stakeholders for their decision ("regulators rated the patient's relevance for their decision higher and the own role lower compared to sellers", see previous study) [15].…”

“…They could for example be linked to general "valuation and trade uncertainties" [15,66,67]. Offer gaps in general might also arise from other behavioural effects like a "different focus" of the seller or buyer role [68][69][70][71][72][73], or role related moral commitments [74,75], to name a few of many other proposed explanatory heuristics for valuation gaps, discovered in experimental studies [15,22].…”

Timing Effects in Health Valuations

“…This evidence is in accordance with the findings of Walker et al . () who observed lower WTP to reduce damage if someone else can be made responsible for the loss. All fatal avalanche accidents in the winter of 2004–2005 happened to occur off‐piste, a fact that was regularly reported by the media.…”