The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study

Abstract

Standard applications of utility theory assume that utility depends solely on outcomes and not on causes. This study uses a field experiment conducted in the Netherlands to determine if alternative causes of an environmental problem affect willingness to pay to ameliorate it. We find evidence supporting the hypothesis that people are willing to pay significantly more to correct problems caused by humans than by nature (the ''outrage effect''), but find no support for the hypothesis that ''moral responsibility'' matters. We also find support for the hypothesis that stated willingness to pay values obtained via ''cheap talk'' and ''consequential'' treatments are lower than without inclusion of these protocols. r 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. JEL classification: C93; Q28

What are the consequences of consequentiality?

“…They suggest that results from inconsequential (hypothetical) referendum should not be used to make inference about how CV works in consequential referendum. Bulte et al (2005) explore the impact of consequentiality in a survey setting by telling respondents that the results of the survey will be available to policy makers. They do not directly elicit respondents' reactions to this information.…”

Environmental and Pro-Social Norms: Evidence from 30 Countries

“…Wellinformed citizens are more aware of environmental issues and problems and have stronger environmental attitudes, because they are more knowledgeable about the possible damage (Danielson et al, 1995;Torgler and Garcia-Valiñas, 2007). The strength of formal and informal education is also visible in Tables 1 and 2 The economic situation of an individual is also a significant aspect (Whitehead, 1991;Stevens et al, 1994;Blomquist and Whitehead, 1998;Popp, 2001;Witzke and Urfei, 2001;Bulte et al, 2005;Dupont, 2004;Veisten et al, 2004;Hidano et al, 2005). These studies show a positive relationship between income and a preference to contribute to environmental causes.…”

“…Diener and Suh, 2000;Brewer and Steenbergen, 2002;Uslaner, 2004;Brewer et al, 2004;andChang andChu, 2006 andTorgler, 2007). In this paper, we investigate the correlation 1 It has been shown that the preferences to protect the environment (regarding causes and consequences of environmental damages) depend on the level of information included in the questionnaire (Bulte et al, 2005).…”

Do causes of environmental problems affect Hicksian equivalent surplus? Evidence from the field

“…Various authors (e.g., Kahneman et al 1993, Kahneman and Ritov 1994, DeKay and McClelland 1996, and Bulte et al 2003 use Hicksian compensating surplus data (CS hereafter) to evaluate whether stated willingness to pay (WTP) is affected by the cause of the threat. A common finding is that causes indeed do matter and, more specifically, that people are WTP more to undo harm caused by humans (as opposed to nature).…”

“…Following Bulte et al (2003), our analysis focused on the seal population in the Waddenzee (an estuary in the North of the Netherlands), which reached a low point of about 300 animals in the 1970s. Currently the number of animals has recovered to some 2,000 seals, but that number is still much lower than the 18,000 seals that lived in the Waddenzee in the beginning of last century.…”