IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/iaecre/v13y2007i2p171-18210.1007-s11294-007-9080-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Charitable Donations: Evidence of Demand for Environmental Protection?

Author

Listed:
  • Debra Israel

Abstract

Using data from the 2001 Giving and Volunteering in the United States survey, I examine household charitable donations to environmental organizations. Household income has a positive impact on environmental giving. While the tax price affects overall charitable contributions, it does not affect environmental giving. More education, being female, homeownership, and voting are also associated with a greater likelihood of contributing to the environment. African-Americans and Latinos are less likely to contribute to the environment, although conditional on giving, Latinos give more. Retired persons and households with children are less likely to contribute to the environment. Larger households give less to the environment. Households from the Northeast are the most likely to make environmental contributions while households from the South are the least likely. Copyright International Atlantic Economic Society 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Debra Israel, 2007. "Charitable Donations: Evidence of Demand for Environmental Protection?," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 13(2), pages 171-182, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:iaecre:v:13:y:2007:i:2:p:171-182:10.1007/s11294-007-9080-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11294-007-9080-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11294-007-9080-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11294-007-9080-4?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. James Andreoni & Eleanor Brown & Isaac Rischall, 2003. "Charitable Giving by Married Couples Who Decides and Why Does it Matter?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 38(1).
    2. Douglas Macmillan & Trevor Smart & Andrew Thorburn, 1999. "A Field Experiment Involving Cash and Hypothetical Charitable Donations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 399-412, October.
    3. Tiehen, Laura, 2001. "Tax Policy and Charitable Contributions of Money," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 54(n. 4), pages 707-23, December.
    4. Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Bohara, Alok K. & Silva, Carol L., 2002. "Further Investigation of Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Fair Share, Time of Contribution, and Respondent Uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 144-168, July.
    5. Tiehen, Laura, 2001. "Tax Policy and Charitable Contributions of Money," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 54(4), pages 707-723, December.
    6. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1997. "Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non‐Experimental Comparison," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 123-137, January.
    7. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    8. Richer, Jerrell, 1995. "Green Giving: An Analysis of Contributions to Major U.S. Environmental Groups," Discussion Papers 10870, Resources for the Future.
    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. Maryam Dilmaghani, 2018. "Which is greener: secularity or religiosity? Environmental philanthropy along religiosity spectrum," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 477-502, April.
    2. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. Menz, Tobias & Welsch, Heinz, 2010. "Population aging and environmental preferences in OECD countries: The case of air pollution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2582-2589, October.
    4. Brouhle, Keith & Khanna, Madhu, 2012. "Determinants of participation versus consumption in the Nordic Swan eco-labeled market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 142-151.
    5. Khachaturyan, Marianna & Czap, Natalia V., 2016. "Different Strokes for Different Folks: Gender and Emotions in an Environmental Game," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(4).

    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. repec:kap:iaecre:v:13:y:2007:i:2:p:171-182 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    3. Dittrich, Marcus & Mey, Bianka, 2021. "Giving time or giving money? On the relationship between charitable contributions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Schlapfer, Felix & Roschewitz, Anna & Hanley, Nick, 2004. "Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Yamamura, Eiji & Tsutsui, Yoshiro & Ohtake, Fumio, 2018. "Altruistic and selfish motivations of charitable giving: The case of the hometown tax donation system (Furusato nozei) in Japan," MPRA Paper 86181, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2017. "Referenda Under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 479-504, July.
    7. Catherine Eckel, 2005. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Field Test Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies," Working Papers 2098, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Huck, Steffen & Rasul, Imran, 2011. "Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5-6), pages 351-362, June.
    9. Amee Kamdar & Steven Levitt & John List & Brian Mullaney & Chad Syverson, 2015. "Once and Done: Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Increase Charitable Contributions," Natural Field Experiments 00775, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. John A. List, 2011. "The Market for Charitable Giving," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(2), pages 157-180, Spring.
    11. Shuyang Wang & Xiaoyu Wu & Zhilin Li & Jing-Hua Zhang, 2021. "Tax-Exempt Status and Associated Factors among Charitable Foundations in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.
    12. Zachary Halberstam & James R. Hines Jr., 2023. "Quality-Aware Tax Incentives for Charitable Contributions," CESifo Working Paper Series 10250, CESifo.
    13. Johnston, Robert J. & Joglekar, Deepak P., 2005. "Validating Hypothetical Surveys Using Binding Public Referenda: Implications for Stated Preference Valuation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19519, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Naomi E. Feldman, 2010. "Time Is Money: Choosing between Charitable Activities," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 103-130, February.
    15. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Mart󹑺-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    16. Benediktson, Mathias Nylandsted, 2018. "Investigating the U-Shaped Charitable Giving Profile Using Register-Based Data," DaCHE discussion papers 2018:1, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    17. Provencher, Bill & Lewis, David J. & Anderson, Kathryn, 2012. "Disentangling preferences and expectations in stated preference analysis with respondent uncertainty: The case of invasive species prevention," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 169-182.
    18. Marie Hladká & Vladimír Hyánek, 2017. "A Model of Donor Behaviour in the Czech Republic [Model dárcovského chování v České republice]," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2017(2), pages 17-33.
    19. Heist, H. Daniel & Cnaan, Ram A., 2018. "Price and agency effects on charitable giving behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 129-138.
    20. Wodon, Quentin & Alleyne, Betty & Cong, Lin & Mulusa, Judy & Niami, Farhad, 2014. "Accounting for Trends in Charitable Tax Deductions: Framework and Application to the District of Columbia," MPRA Paper 45392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Nathalie Monnet & Ugo Panizza, 2017. "A Note on the Economics of Philanthropy," IHEID Working Papers 19-2017, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Charitable donations; Demand for environmental quality; Environmental giving; Q50;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:iaecre:v:13:y:2007:i:2:p:171-182:10.1007/s11294-007-9080-4. 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.