IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/96675.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Detecting social network effects on willingness to pay for environmental improvements using egocentric network measures

Author

Listed:
  • Janmaat, Johannus
  • Geleta, Solomon
  • Loomis, John

Abstract

Since people care about each other, an individual's willingness to pay to protect an environmental good or service will reflect their concern for others who would also be impacted by a change in the good or service. Through the extended social network, an individual's willingness to pay will reflect the impacts on people who they do not immediately know. If this effect is not considered, willingness to pay estimates can be biased. However, extended social networks are difficult to measure. We therefore explored the potential for egocentric social networks to help explain variations in willingness to pay. Given the conventional way of describing social networks, we demonstrate that egocentric social network measures should not be related to willingness to pay if there is no relationship between the social network measure and the willingness to pay for a change in the environmental good or service. When the social network measures are increasing in the willingness to pay for an environmental improvement, then a regression of willingness to pay on these social network measures will show a positive relationship. Empirically, we find such a relationship in the results of a choice experiment conducted in the central Okanagan of British Columbia. However, we also find that a measure of peoples assessment of the benefits of development relative to the environmental impacts was a more effective predictor. This may be a consequence of how the respondent's egocentric networks were measured. Alternative approaches to measuring the egocentric social network may be necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Janmaat, Johannus & Geleta, Solomon & Loomis, John, 2019. "Detecting social network effects on willingness to pay for environmental improvements using egocentric network measures," MPRA Paper 96675, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:96675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/96675/1/MPRA_paper_96675.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:cbooks:9780511761942 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Ostrom,Elinor, 2015. "Governing the Commons," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107569782.
    3. Pretty, Jules & Ward, Hugh, 2001. "Social Capital and the Environment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 209-227, February.
    4. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    5. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    6. Mark Granovetter, 2005. "The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 33-50, Winter.
    7. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    8. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    9. Matthew O. Jackson, 2009. "Networks and Economic Behavior," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 489-513, May.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    11. Axsen, Jonn & Orlebar, Caroline & Skippon, Stephen, 2013. "Social influence and consumer preference formation for pro-environmental technology: The case of a U.K. workplace electric-vehicle study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 96-107.
    12. Reza Yousefi-Nooraie & Alexandra Marin & Robert Hanneman & Eleanor Pullenayegum & Lynne Lohfeld & Maureen Dobbins, 2019. "The Relationship Between the Position of Name Generator Questions and Responsiveness in Multiple Name Generator Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(2), pages 243-262, May.
    13. Matthew Elliott & Benjamin Golub, 2019. "A Network Approach to Public Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(2), pages 730-776.
    14. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    15. Abhijit V. Banerjee, 1992. "A Simple Model of Herd Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(3), pages 797-817.
    16. Juan Antonio Carrasco & Bernie Hogan & Barry Wellman & Eric J Miller, 2008. "Collecting Social Network Data to Study Social Activity-Travel Behavior: An Egocentric Approach," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 35(6), pages 961-980, December.
    17. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    18. Bouma, Jetske & Bulte, Erwin & van Soest, Daan, 2008. "Trust and cooperation: Social capital and community resource management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 155-166, September.
    19. Neilson, William & Wichmann, Bruno, 2014. "Social networks and non-market valuations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 155-170.
    20. Bramoulle, Yann & Kranton, Rachel, 2007. "Public goods in networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 478-494, July.
    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. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2018. "A More Flexible Model or Simply More Effort? On the Use of Correlated Random Parameters in Applied Choice Studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 419-429.
    2. Caplan, Arthur J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B. & Toll, Kristopher, 2021. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for residential amenities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    3. Frontuto, Vito & Corsi, Alessandro & Novelli, Silvia & Gullino, Paola & Larcher, Federica, 2020. "The visual impact of agricultural sheds on rural landscapes: The willingness to pay for mitigation solutions and treatment effects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Hynes, Stephen & Armstrong, Claire W. & Xuan, Bui Bich & Ankamah-Yeboah, Isaac & Simpson, Katherine & Tinch, Robert & Ressurreição, Adriana, 2021. "Have environmental preferences and willingness to pay remained stable before and during the global Covid-19 shock?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    5. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    6. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2017. "The Presence of Hypothetical Bias within Spatial Decay and Charismatic Species: An Application of Monarch and Viceroy Butterflies," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258204, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Talevi, Marta & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Das, Ipsita & Lewis, Jessica J. & Singha, Ashok K., 2022. "Speaking from experience: Preferences for cooking with biogas in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Wensing, Joana & Caputo, Vincenzina & Carraresi, Laura & Bröring, Stefanie, 2020. "The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    9. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
    11. Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte, 2021. "Would you prefer to rent rather than own your new heating system? Insights from a discrete choice experiment among owner-occupiers in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    13. Roe, Brian E. & Interis, Matthew G. & Howard, Gregory E., 2018. "Utilizing Subjective Beliefs in Stated Preference Models: Issues and Solutions," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274017, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    15. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    16. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa A. House & Jing Xie, 2016. "Online Survey Data Quality and Its Implication for Willingness-to-Pay: A Cross-Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 199-221, June.
    18. Gregory Howard & Brian E. Roe & Matthew G. Interis & Jay Martin, 2020. "Addressing Attribute Value Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments to Avoid Unintended Consequences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 813-838, December.
    19. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Andrew G. Meyer, 2021. "Incorporating Beliefs and Experiences into Choice Experiment Analysis: Implications for Policy Recommendations," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 823-848, June.
    20. Ricardo A. Daziano & Luis Miranda-Moreno & Shahram Heydari, 2013. "Computational Bayesian Statistics in Transportation Modeling: From Road Safety Analysis to Discrete Choice," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5), pages 570-592, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social network effects; egocentric; sociocentric; prosocial; ego-alter; random utility; network centrality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:pra:mprapa:96675. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.