IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/11859.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Generational Divide in Support for Environmental Policies: European Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Joni Hersch
  • W. Kip Viscusi

Abstract

This article examines age variations in support for environmental protection policies that affect climate change using a sample of over 14,000 respondents to a 1999 Eurobarometer survey. There is a steady decline with age in whether respondents are willing to incur higher gasoline prices to protect the environment. This relationship remains after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics. There are age-related differences in information about environmental risks, information sources about the environment, perceived health risks from climate change, and degree of worry about climate change. However, taking these factors into account does not eliminate the age variation in willingness to pay more for gasoline to protect the environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Joni Hersch & W. Kip Viscusi, 2005. "The Generational Divide in Support for Environmental Policies: European Evidence," NBER Working Papers 11859, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:11859
    Note: EH EEE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11859.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Israel Debra & Levinson Arik, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Environmental Quality: Testable Empirical Implications of the Growth and Environment Literature," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-31, February.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Joseph E. Aldy & Scott Barrett & Robert N. Stavins, 2003. "Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 373-397, December.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    5. Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. "Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-184, June.
    6. Richard B. Stewart & Jonathan B. Wiener, 2003. "Reconstructing Climate Policy," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 53156, September.
    7. Israel, Debra K., 2004. "International support for environmental protection," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(6), pages 757-780, December.
    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. Vladimir Udalov, 2018. "Analysis of Individual Renewable Energy Support: An Enhanced Model," EIIW Discussion paper disbei245, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    2. Garau, Giorgio & Lecca, Patrizio & Mandras, Giovanni, 2013. "The impact of population ageing on energy use: Evidence from Italy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 970-980.
    3. Martin Achtnicht, 2012. "German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO 2 emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 679-697, August.
    4. Lorenzo Cerda Planas, 2014. "Moving to Greener Societies: Moral Motivation and Green Behaviour," Post-Print halshs-01018651, HAL.
    5. Lorenzo Cerda Planas, 2014. "Moving to Greener Societies: Moral Motivation and Green Behaviour," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01018651, HAL.
    6. Jaeseung Lee & Trudy Cameron, 2008. "Popular Support for Climate Change Mitigation: Evidence from a General Population Mail Survey," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 223-248, October.
    7. Kahn Matthew E & Vaughn Ryan K., 2009. "Green Market Geography: The Spatial Clustering of Hybrid Vehicles and LEED Registered Buildings," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Lorenzo Cerda Planas, 2014. "Moving to Greener Societies: Moral Motivation and Green Behaviour," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 14035, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    9. Onno J. Kuik & Barbara Bucher & Michela Catenacci & Etem Karakaya & Richard S.J. Tol, 2006. "Methodological aspects of recent climate change damage cost studies," Working Papers FNU-122, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Dec 2006.
    10. Turvani, Margherita & Chiabai, Aline & Alberini, Anna & Tonin, Stefania, 2007. "Public Policies for Contaminated Site Cleanup: The Opinions of the Italian Public," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 10276, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    11. Marco Salvi & Juerg Syz, 2011. "What drives “green housing” construction? Evidence from Switzerland," Journal of Financial Economic Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 3(1), pages 86-102, April.

    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. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard Zeckhauser, 2005. "The Perception and Valuation of the Risks of Climate Change: A Rational and Behavioral Blend," NBER Working Papers 11863, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Svedsater, Henrik, 2000. "Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: Test of perfect and regular embedding," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 605-623, December.
    4. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    5. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    6. Frankel, Jeffrey A. & Bosetti, Valentina, 2011. "Politically Feasible Emission Target Formulas to Attain 460 ppm CO[subscript 2] Concentrations," Working Paper Series rwp11-016, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro, 2006. "‘US, China and the Economics of Climate Negotiations’," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 63-89, March.
    8. Frank Biermann, 2005. "Between the USA and the South: strategic choices for European climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 273-290, May.
    9. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    10. Dienes, Christian, 2015. "Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 122-129.
    11. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    13. Valentina Bosetti & Jeffrey A. Frankel, 2009. "Global Climate Policy Architecture and Political Feasibility: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets to Attain 460 ppm CO2 Concentrations," NBER Working Papers 15516, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Jeffrey A. Frankel, 2009. "An Elaborated Global Climate Policy Architecture: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets for All Countries in All Decades," NBER Working Papers 14876, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Roessler, Craig, 1998. "Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 299-312, December.
    16. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    17. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    18. Iddisah Sulemana, 2016. "Are Happier People More Willing to Make Income Sacrifices to Protect the Environment?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 447-467, May.
    19. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    20. Valentina Bosetti & Jeffrey Frankel, 2012. "Politically Feasible Emissions Targets to Attain 460 ppm CO 2 Concentrations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 86-109.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:11859. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.