Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern

Contents:

Author Info

  • Czap, Natalia V.
  • Czap, Hans J.
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    This paper explores the determinants of revealed environmental concern. Specifically, the model proposed in this paper examines the connection between the willingness to sacrifice monetary well-being to support the environment and stated environmental concern, psychological predispositions, socio-economic and demographic characteristics, and pecuniary incentives. Empirical tests show that certain facets of stated environmental concern (such as New Environmental Paradigm, environmental-economic tradeoff, and participation in outdoor activities), psychological traits of trust and empathy, socio-demographic characteristics of gender and residence, as well as pecuniary incentives, including monetary benefits and opportunity costs, are good predictors of actual behavior in the revealed environmental concern experiment. The results support general external validity of environmental concern constructs. They also add to the discussion of what psychological factors drive individuals' actions benefiting the environment, which is of particular interest to environmental agencies and organizations. In addition, we find evidence of a common understanding of how much ought to be donated, as donations are less sensitive to external factors compared to actions based on monetary incentives. The results also demonstrate that an increase in the opportunity costs of donations leads to a very modest decrease in donations, which is good news for environmental agencies.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-50DMBB1-1/2/97cdc2fe0787d8f38b8a96b20714aed1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 69 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 10 (August)
    Pages: 2033-2041

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:10:p:2033-2041

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

    Related research

    Keywords: Revealed preferences Stated preferences Environmental concern Pecuniary incentives Psychological traits Environmental experiment;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Dyer, Douglas & Kagel, John H & Levin, Dan, 1989. "A Comparison of Naive and Experienced Bidders in Common Value Offer Auctions: A Laboratory Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 108-15, March.
    2. Maria L. Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey & Ron C. Mittelhammer, 2003. "Are Stated Preferences Good Predictors of Market Behavior?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 44-45.
    3. David Bjornstad & Ronald Cummings & Laura Osborne, 1997. "A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 207-221, October.
    4. Taylor, Laura O., 1998. "Incentive Compatible Referenda And The Valuation Of Environmental Goods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(2), October.
    5. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-66, March.
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    7. Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000. "Pay Enough Or Don'T Pay At All," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 115(3), pages 791-810, August.
    8. Smith, Vernon L & Suchanek, Gerry L & Williams, Arlington W, 1988. "Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1119-51, September.
    9. Hayes, William M. & Lynne, Gary D., 2004. "Towards a centerpiece for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 287-301, July.
    10. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
    11. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    12. Kelly Maguire & Laura Taylor & Shiferaw Gurmu, 2003. "Do students behave like adults? Evidence from valuation experiments," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(12), pages 753-756.
    13. Urama, Kevin C. & Hodge, Ian D., 2006. "Are stated preferences convergent with revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 24-37, August.
    14. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2008. "Environmental regulation of households: An empirical review of economic and psychological factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 559-574, July.
    15. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
    16. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    17. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    18. Soderqvist, Tore, 2003. "Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 105-120, November.
    19. Ovchinnikova, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Lynne, Gary D. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2009. ""I don't want to be selling my soul": Two experiments in environmental economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 221-229, March.
    20. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Clarke, Andrea & Brown, Thomas C., 2003. "Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 63-76, February.
    21. Gary D. Lynne, 2002. "Agricultural Industrialization: A Metaeconomics Look at the Metaphors by which we Live," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 410-427.
    22. Sneddon, Chris & Howarth, Richard B. & Norgaard, Richard B., 2006. "Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 253-268, May.
    23. Robert D. Weaver, 1996. "Prosocial Behavior: Private Contributions to Agriculture's Impact on the Environment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 231-247.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:10:p:2033-2041. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.