IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeeman/v120y2023ics0095069623000426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Solidarity under heterogenous adaptation costs: Experimental evidence on coping after climate hazards

Author

Listed:
  • Vorlaufer, Tobias
  • Steimanis, Ivo

Abstract

Climate hazards destroy the livelihoods and assets of millions of people worldwide, but also spur solidarity within affected communities. We conducted a pre-registered incentivized online experiment with a sample of 769 UK residents to better understand solidarity behavior framed in the context of flooding. In the experiment, participants make costly adaptation decisions that reduce their own risk of endowment loss. Moreover, they can make solidarity transfers to affected partners if unaffected themselves. Participants are matched with a partner who takes adaptation decisions, too. We experimentally vary the adaptation costs of the partner to be either the same (control condition) or heterogenous (known or uncertain). In the control condition, participants show less solidarity with non-adapted partners than with adapted ones. On average, the heterogenous adaptation cost treatments do not significantly affect observed solidarity transfers. Explorative analyses indicate, however, that differences in transfers to adapted and non-adapted partners are mediated by one's adaptation behavior. Under known heterogenous adaptation costs, risk-averse players (who adapted themselves) show as much solidarity with adapted as with non-adapted partners. Overall, the results suggest that information about adaptation cost heterogeneity may promote solidarity after exogenous shocks when people cannot easily adapt proactively.

Suggested Citation

  • Vorlaufer, Tobias & Steimanis, Ivo, 2023. "Solidarity under heterogenous adaptation costs: Experimental evidence on coping after climate hazards," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:120:y:2023:i:c:s0095069623000426
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2023.102824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069623000426
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jeem.2023.102824?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jordi Brandts & Gary Charness, 2011. "The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 375-398, September.
    2. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    3. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    4. Elena Cettolin & Franziska Tausch, 2015. "Risk taking and risk sharing: Does responsibility matter?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 229-248, June.
    5. Lin, Wanchuan & Liu, Yiming & Meng, Juanjuan, 2014. "The crowding-out effect of formal insurance on informal risk sharing: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 184-211.
    6. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    7. Simon Gächter & Lingbo Huang & Martin Sefton, 2016. "Combining “real effort” with induced effort costs: the ball-catching task," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 687-712, December.
    8. Anderberg, Dan & Morsink, Karlijn, 2020. "The introduction of formal insurance and its effect on redistribution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 22-45.
    9. Johnson, Noel D. & Mislin, Alexandra A., 2011. "Trust games: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 865-889.
    10. Lenel, Friederike & Steiner, Susan, 2020. "Formal insurance and solidarity. Experimental evidence from Cambodia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 212-234.
    11. Tavoni, Alessandro & Dannenberg, Astrid & Kallis, Giorgos & Löschel, Andreas, 2011. "Inequality, communication and the avoidance of disastrous climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37570, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Jörg Gross & Robert Böhm, 2020. "Voluntary restrictions on self-reliance increase cooperation and mitigate wealth inequality," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(46), pages 29202-29211, November.
    13. Dominik Paprotny & Antonia Sebastian & Oswaldo Morales-Nápoles & Sebastiaan N. Jonkman, 2018. "Trends in flood losses in Europe over the past 150 years," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Selten, Reinhard & Ockenfels, Axel, 1998. "An experimental solidarity game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 517-539, March.
    15. Felix C Brodbeck & Katharina G Kugler & Julia A M Reif & Markus A Maier, 2013. "Morals Matter in Economic Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    16. Maxwell Burton-Chellew & Robert May & Stuart West, 2013. "Combined inequality in wealth and risk leads to disaster in the climate change game," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(4), pages 815-830, October.
    17. Manfred Milinski & Torsten Röhl & Jochem Marotzke, 2011. "Cooperative interaction of rich and poor can be catalyzed by intermediate climate targets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 807-814, December.
    18. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    19. Jason Dana & Roberto Weber & Jason Kuang, 2007. "Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 67-80, October.
    20. Renate Strobl & Conny Wunsch, 2021. "Risky choices and solidarity: disentangling different behavioural channels," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1185-1214, December.
    21. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Renate Strobl & Conny Wunsch, 2021. "Risky choices and solidarity: disentangling different behavioural channels," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1185-1214, December.
    2. Alves, Guillermo & Blanchard, Pablo & Burdin, Gabriel & Chávez, Mariana & Dean, Andrés, 2022. "Like principal, like agent? Managerial preferences in employee-owned firms," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 877-899, December.
    3. Renate Strobl & Conny Wunsch, 2017. "Does Voluntary Risk Taking Affect Solidarity? Experimental Evidence from Kenya," CESifo Working Paper Series 6578, CESifo.
    4. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias, 2021. "Combating climate change: Is the option to exploit a public good a barrier for reaching critical thresholds? Experimental evidence," MPRA Paper 107144, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Hyndman, Kyle & Walker, Matthew J., 2022. "Fairness and risk in ultimatum bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 90-105.
    6. Hanna Freudenreich & Marcela Ibanez & Stephan Dietrich & Oliver Musshoff, 2018. "Formal insurance, risk sharing, and the dynamics of other-regarding preferences," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 266532, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    7. Khalmetski, Kiryl & Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2015. "Surprising gifts: Theory and laboratory evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 163-208.
    8. Feess, Eberhard & Schilling, Thomas & Timofeyev, Yuriy, 2023. "Misreporting in teams with individual decision making: The impact of information and communication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 509-532.
    9. Walkowitz, Gari & Weiss, Arne R., 2017. "“Read my lips! (but only if I was elected)!” Experimental evidence on the effects of electoral competition on promises, shirking and trust," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 348-367.
    10. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    11. Robert Böhm & Özgür Gürerk & Thomas Lauer, 2020. "Nudging Climate Change Mitigation: A Laboratory Experiment with Inter-Generational Public Goods," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, October.
    12. Kreitmair, Ursula & Bower-Bir, Jacob, 2021. "Too different to solve climate change? Experimental evidence on the effects of production and benefit heterogeneity on collective action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    13. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    14. Aseem Mahajan & Reuben Kline & Dustin Tingley, 2022. "Collective Risk and Distributional Equity in Climate Change Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(1), pages 61-90, January.
    15. Strobl, Renate & Wunsch, Conny, 2018. "Risky Choices and Solidarity: Why Experimental Design Matters," Working papers 2018/17, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    16. Kawamura, Tetsuya & Mori, Tomoharu & Motonishi, Taizo & Ogawa, Kazuhito, 2021. "Is Financial Literacy Dangerous? Financial Literacy, Behavioral Factors, and Financial Choices of Households," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Waichman, Israel & Requate, Till & Karde, Markus & Milinski, Manfred, 2021. "Challenging conventional wisdom: Experimental evidence on heterogeneity and coordination in avoiding a collective catastrophic event," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    19. Zultan, Ro’i, 2012. "Strategic and social pre-play communication in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-434.
    20. Brilé Anderson & Thomas Bernauer & Stefano Balietti, 2017. "Effects of fairness principles on willingness to pay for climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 447-461, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:120:y:2023:i:c:s0095069623000426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.