IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v81y2022i2d10.1007_s10640-021-00622-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Paul R. Hindsley

    (Eckerd College)

  • O. Ashton Morgan

    (Appalachian State University)

Abstract

Recent research in the social psychology literature suggests that personally held beliefs may play a pivotal role in individuals’ acceptance of environmental policy. Using the contingent valuation method framework, we investigate the role of cultural worldview on individuals’ support for, and valuation of, an environmental policy that differs by its underlying cause. Results suggest that willingness to pay point estimates for management action (1) can be influenced by cultural worldviews; and (2) are dependent on the cause of environmental degradation. We also extend the examination of potential endogeneity in ex-post perceived survey consequentiality and willingness to pay measures. We find some evidence that cultural worldviews influence consequentiality and that the framing of the environmental policy scenario can also influence whether an endogenous relationship exists between the randomly assigned payment instrument and the consequentiality measure.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:81:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10640-021-00622-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-021-00622-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-021-00622-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-021-00622-5?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. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    2. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    3. Groothuis, Peter A. & Whitehead, John C., 2009. "The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 271-280, October.
    4. Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Kroll, Stephan, 2017. "Accepting market failure: Cultural worldviews and the opposition to corrective environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 193-204.
    5. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Wiktor Adamowicz & Diane Dupont, 2019. "Incorporating Stated Consequentiality Questions in Stated Preference Research," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(3), pages 293-306.
    6. Bulte, Erwin & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 330-342, March.
    7. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    8. Interis, Matthew & Petrolia, Daniel, 2014. "The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary- and Multinomial-Choice Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-16.
    9. Sandra S. Batie, 2008. "Wicked Problems and Applied Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1176-1191.
    10. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    11. Dan M. Kahan & Donald Braman & John Gastil & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 2007. "Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition: Explaining the White‐Male Effect in Risk Perception," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 465-505, November.
    12. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. O. Ashton Morgan & D. Matthew Massey & William L. Huth, 2009. "Demand for Diving on Large Ship Artificial Reefs," Working Papers 09-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    14. Cherry, Todd L. & García, Jorge H. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2014. "The development and deployment of low-carbon energy technologies: The role of economic interests and cultural worldviews on public support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 562-566.
    15. Morgan, O. Ashton & Huth, William L. & Hindsley, Paul, 2018. "Examining the perceptions and effects of survey consequentiality across population subgroups," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 305-322, July.
    16. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2017. "Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 258-268.
    17. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    18. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    19. Cherry, Todd L. & McEvoy, David M. & Westskog, Hege, 2019. "Cultural worldviews, institutional rules and the willingness to participate in green energy programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 28-38.
    20. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    21. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    22. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    23. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Nigora Baymuminova & Guljakhon Shermukhammedova & Jeong-Gil Choi, 2023. "Estimating the Economic Value of Ichan Kala Using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Gabriella De Sario & Giovanni Marin & Agnese Sacchi, 2023. "Citizens' attitudes towards climate mitigation policies: The role of occupational exposure in EU countries," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(2), pages 255-280, May.

    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. Zawojska, Ewa & Gastineau, Pascal & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Cheze, Benoit & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Measuring policy consequentiality perceptions in stated preference surveys," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313977, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    3. Tobias Börger & Tenaw G. Abate & Margrethe Aanesen & Ewa Zawojska, 2021. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Experimental Design Effects on Self-Reported Perceptions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(2), pages 407-424.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    5. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    6. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Marco Horvath, 2021. "Consequentiality, Elicitation Formats, and the Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity: Evidence from Germany," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(3), pages 626-640.
    7. Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan, 2021. "Consumers’ Preferences for Eco-labels on Plants: The Influence of Trust and Consequentiality Perceptions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    8. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    9. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    10. Ewa Zawojska & Michał Krawczyk, 2022. "Incentivizing stated preference elicitation with choice-matching in the field," Working Papers 2022-04, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2018. "Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?," Cahiers de recherche 18-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    13. Pengfei Liu & Xiaohui Tian, 2021. "Downward Hypothetical Bias in the Willingness to Accept Measure for Private Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1679-1699, October.
    14. Andor, Mark A. & Lange, Andreas & Sommer, Stephan, 2022. "Fairness and the support of redistributive environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    15. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Ndefo & Thomas Poder, 2020. "Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects?," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 11-36, April.
    16. Christian A. Vossler & Stéphane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2023. "Revisiting the Gap between the Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept for Public Goods," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(2), pages 413-445.
    17. Manuel Frondel & Stephan Sommer & Lukas Tomberg, 2021. "WTA-WTP Disparity: The Role of Perceived Realism of the Valuation Setting," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(1), pages 196-206.
    18. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2015. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    19. Needham, Katherine & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2018. "What is the causal impact of information and knowledge in stated preference studies?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 69-89.
    20. Kolstoe, Sonja & Naald, Brian Vander & Cohan, Alison, 2022. "A tale of two samples: Understanding WTP differences in the age of social media," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).

    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:kap:enreec:v:81:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10640-021-00622-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.