IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v114y2015icp180-187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Thinking past, thinking future: An empirical test of the effects of retrospective assessment on future preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Noblet, Caroline L.
  • Anderson, Mark W.
  • Teisl, Mario F.

Abstract

In recent work, we asserted that the largest group of stakeholders for sustainability science is future generations; yet intergenerational tradeoffs are often understudied. We proposed retrospective assessment as one potential means of clarifying what future preferences might be. Using a split-sample design we test the potential for retrospective assessment to influence citizens' preferences for future policy decision. We test the potential for retrospective assessment to yield increased or decreased support for policy. Our findings reveal context dependent public policy preferences where the presence of retrospective assessment significantly impacts citizens' preferences and outcomes appear strongly influenced by the attributes of the historical (or retrospective) scenario provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Noblet, Caroline L. & Anderson, Mark W. & Teisl, Mario F., 2015. "Thinking past, thinking future: An empirical test of the effects of retrospective assessment on future preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 180-187.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:114:y:2015:i:c:p:180-187
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915001585
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.002?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norton, Bryan & Costanza, Robert & Bishop, Richard C., 1998. "The evolution of preferences: Why 'sovereign' preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 193-211, February.
    2. Caroline Noblet & Mario Teisl & Katherine Farrow & Jonathan Rubin, 2012. "Biofuels development in Maine: Using trees to oil the wheels of sustainability," Post-Print hal-01667414, HAL.
    3. Robert Sugden, 2005. "Coping with Preference Anomalies in Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Market-Simulation Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 129-160, September.
    4. Gowdy, John M., 2007. "Toward an experimental foundation for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 649-655, September.
    5. Anderson, Mark W. & Teisl, Mario & Noblet, Caroline, 2012. "Giving voice to the future in sustainability: Retrospective assessment to learn prospective stakeholder engagement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 1-6.
    6. Vail, David & Hultkrantz, Lars, 2000. "Property rights and sustainable nature tourism: adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 223-242, November.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    8. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    9. Gowdy, John M. & Howarth, Richard B., 2007. "Sustainability and benefit-cost analysis: Theoretical assessments and policy options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 637-638, September.
    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. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Can Individuals Caring Little about Future Generations Serve As Their Representatives?," Working Papers SDES-2020-9, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2020.
    2. Michalis Skourtos & Dimitris Damigos & Areti Kontogianni & Christos Tourkolias & Alistair Hunt, 2019. "Embedding Preference Uncertainty for Environmental Amenities in Climate Change Economic Assessments: A “Random” Step Forward," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Carfora, Alfonso & Romano, Antonio A. & Ronghi, Monica & Scandurra, Giuseppe, 2017. "Renewable generation across Italian regions: Spillover effects and effectiveness of European Regional Fund," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 132-141.
    4. Nana Osei Bonsu & Jennifer TyreeHageman & Juliet Kele, 2020. "Beyond Agenda 2030: Future-Oriented Mechanisms in Localising the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-21, November.

    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. Collet, Charles & Gastineau, Pascal & Chèze, Benoît & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Martinez, Frédéric, 2023. "Combining economics and psychology: Does CO2 framing strengthen pro-environmental behaviors?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    2. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2021. "The Effect of Gain-loss Framing on Climate Policy Preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    4. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    5. James K. Hammitt, 2013. "Positive versus Normative Justifications for Benefit-Cost Analysis: Implications for Interpretation and Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 199-218, July.
    6. Marciano, James A. & Lilieholm, Robert J. & Teisl, Mario F. & Leahy, Jessica E. & Neupane, Binod, 2014. "Factors affecting public support for forest-based biorefineries: A comparison of mill towns and the general public in Maine, USA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 301-311.
    7. Ward, Clement E. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Dutton, Jennifer M., 2008. "Implicit Value of Retail Beef Product Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-18.
    8. Reynolds, Travis & Kolodinsky, Jane & Murray, Byron, 2012. "Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for compact fluorescent lighting: Policy implications for energy efficiency promotion in Saint Lucia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 712-722.
    9. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    10. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    12. Dharshing, Samdruk & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2017. "The Influence of Political Orientation on the Strength and Temporal Persistence of Policy Framing Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 295-305.
    13. Rebecca Boehm & Hannah Kitchel & Selena Ahmed & Anaya Hall & Colin M. Orians & John Richard Stepp & Al Robbat, Jr. & Timothy S. Griffin & Sean B. Cash, 2019. "Is Agricultural Emissions Mitigation on the Menu for Tea Drinkers?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Raj Chandra & GianCarlo Moschini & Gabriel E. Lade, 2025. "Geographical indications and welfare: Evidence from US wine demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(2), pages 670-695, March.
    15. Anna Dreber & Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson & David Rand, 2013. "Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 349-371, September.
    16. Onundur Pall Ragnarsson, 2025. "A Hedonic Housing Model for Macroprudential Policy," Economics wp99, Department of Economics, Central bank of Iceland.
    17. Huang, Chung L. & Lin, Biing-Hwan, 2006. "A Hedonic Analysis on the Implicit Values of Fresh Tomatoes," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25404, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    19. Hussain, Salman, 2006. "Co-regulation and voluntarism in the provision of food safety: lessons from institutional economics," Working Papers 45996, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    20. Anderson, Simon P. & Foros, Øystein & Kind, Hans Jarle, 2012. "Product quality, competition, and multi-purchasing," Discussion Papers 2012/9, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:ecolec:v:114:y:2015:i:c:p:180-187. 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/ecolecon .

    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.