IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v233y2025ics0921800925000916.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pay the polluter or polluter pays? A preliminary assessment of public preferences for water quality policy

Author

Listed:
  • Oh, Seojeong
  • Gramig, Benjamin M.

Abstract

US agencies have long used the pay-the-polluter (PTP) approach in which government pays agricultural polluters to adopt conservation practices on a voluntary basis to address nutrient pollution. However, limited fiscal resources and continued poor water quality have led to calls for a new paradigm, the polluter-pays-principle (PPP), in which agricultural polluters must clean up their nutrient emissions. Whereas PTP relies on the public cost-sharing with farmers, PPP could induce food price increases that result from farm regulation. Little is known about the general public's preferences with respect to these paradigms. This paper addresses this gap using data from a randomized survey conducted in three US Corn Belt states that have significant agricultural nutrient pollution—Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. We find that, overall, people favor the PPP approach over the existing PTP approach. Comparing PTP to PPP over a range of clean-up responsibilities, respondents are more likely to support PPP than PTP when given the choice of the most stringent PPP type. Examining specific PPP features, we find that assigning clean-up responsibilities equal to pollution source levels positively impacts support only PPP, while combining pollution trading with farm regulation has a negative impact on support for PPP.

Suggested Citation

  • Oh, Seojeong & Gramig, Benjamin M., 2025. "Pay the polluter or polluter pays? A preliminary assessment of public preferences for water quality policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:233:y:2025:i:c:s0921800925000916
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925000916
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108608?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. Sergey S. Rabotyagov & Adriana M. Valcu & Catherine L. Kling, 2014. "Reversing Property Rights: Practice-Based Approaches for Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint-source Water Pollution When Emissions Aggregate Nonlinearly," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(2), pages 397-419.
    2. 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.
    3. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    4. Collart, Alba J. & Ishee, Shea G. & Coble, Keith H., 2021. "Divvying Up the Pie: U.S. Adults’ Preferences for USDA Expenditures in 2018," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(3), September.
    5. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    6. Cloé Garnache & Scott M. Swinton & Joseph A. Herriges & Frank Lupi & R. Jan Stevenson, 2016. "Solving the Phosphorus Pollution Puzzle: Synthesis and Directions for Future Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1334-1359.
    7. 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.
    8. Lan, Le & Iftekhar, Md Sayed & Schilizzi, Steven & Fogarty, James, 2024. "Estimating non-market values of protecting groundwater in a constrained environment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 68(02), January.
    9. Catherine L. Kling, 2011. "Economic Incentives to Improve Water Quality in Agricultural Landscapes: Some New Variations on Old Ideas," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 297-309.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Ribaudo, Marc & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Hellerstein, Daniel & Greene, Catherine R., 2008. "The Use of Markets To Increase Private Investment in Environmental Stewardship," Economic Research Report 56473, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Brenna D. Ellison & Jayson L. Lusk & Brian C. Briggeman, 2010. "Taxpayer Beliefs about Farm Income and Preferences for Farm Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 338-354.
    14. Seojeong Oh & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2023. "Valuing Ecosystem Services and Downstream Water Quality Improvement in the U.S. Corn Belt," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 823-872, August.
    15. Vossler, Christian A. & Evans, Mary F., 2009. "Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 338-345, November.
    16. Ellison, Brenna D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Briggeman, Brian C., 2011. "Taxpayer Preferences for Farm Policy and USDA Budget Expenditures," 2011 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2011, Corpus Christi, Texas 98597, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Erlend Dancke Sandorf, 2019. "Did You Miss Something? Inattentive Respondents in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1197-1235, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July.
    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. Nelson, Nanette M. & Loomis, John B. & Jakus, Paul M. & Kealy, Mary J. & von Stackelburg, Nicholas & Ostermiller, Jeff, 2015. "Linking ecological data and economics to estimate the total economic value of improving water quality by reducing nutrients," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-9.
    22. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    23. Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "The political ideology of food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 530-542.
    24. Van Houtven, George & Mansfield, Carol & Phaneuf, Daniel J. & von Haefen, Roger & Milstead, Bryan & Kenney, Melissa A. & Reckhow, Kenneth H., 2014. "Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 40-52.
    25. Ellison Brenna & Lusk Jayson L & Briggeman Brian, 2010. "Other-Regarding Behavior and Taxpayer Preferences for Farm Policy," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, October.
    26. Wanki Moon & Gabriel Pino, 2018. "Do U.S. citizens support government intervention in agriculture? Implications for the political economy of agricultural protection," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 119-129, January.
    27. Jayachandran N. Variyam & Jeffrey L. Jordan & James E. Epperson, 1990. "Preferences of Citizens for Agricultural Policies: Evidence from a National Survey," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 257-267.
    28. Variyam, Jayachandran N. & Jordan, Jeffrey L., 1991. "Economic Perceptions And Agricultural Policy Preferences," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-11, December.
    29. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    30. 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.
    31. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    32. Ellison, Brenna D. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "Taxpayer Preferences For Usda Expenditures," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-6.
    33. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2013. "Policy Instruments for Water Quality Protection," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 111-138, June.
    34. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "Assessment of social demand heterogeneity to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    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. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang & Ye, Tao, 2024. "Efficacy of hypothetical bias mitigation techniques: A cross-country comparison," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2023. "How consequential is policy consequentiality? Evidence from online discrete choice experiment with ornamental plants," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Pappalardo, Gioacchino & West, Grant Howard & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Toscano, Sabrina & Pecorino, Biagio, 2022. "The effect of a UNESCO world heritage site designation on willingness to pay to preserve an agri-environmental good: The case of the dry stone walls in Mt. Etna," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    16. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Lokina, Razack & Mtenga, Erica Louis & Tibanywana, Julieth Julius, 2023. "Stated preferences with survey consequentiality and outcome uncertainty: A split sample discrete choice experiment," EfD Discussion Paper 23-16, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Seojeong Oh & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2023. "Valuing Ecosystem Services and Downstream Water Quality Improvement in the U.S. Corn Belt," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 823-872, August.
    20. 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.

    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:233:y:2025:i:c:s0921800925000916. 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.