IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v69y2010i10p2033-2041.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern

Author

Listed:
  • Czap, Natalia V.
  • Czap, Hans J.

Abstract

This paper explores the determinants of revealed environmental concern. Specifically, the model proposed in this paper examines the connection between the willingness to sacrifice monetary well-being to support the environment and stated environmental concern, psychological predispositions, socio-economic and demographic characteristics, and pecuniary incentives. Empirical tests show that certain facets of stated environmental concern (such as New Environmental Paradigm, environmental-economic tradeoff, and participation in outdoor activities), psychological traits of trust and empathy, socio-demographic characteristics of gender and residence, as well as pecuniary incentives, including monetary benefits and opportunity costs, are good predictors of actual behavior in the revealed environmental concern experiment. The results support general external validity of environmental concern constructs. They also add to the discussion of what psychological factors drive individuals' actions benefiting the environment, which is of particular interest to environmental agencies and organizations. In addition, we find evidence of a common understanding of how much ought to be donated, as donations are less sensitive to external factors compared to actions based on monetary incentives. The results also demonstrate that an increase in the opportunity costs of donations leads to a very modest decrease in donations, which is good news for environmental agencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J., 2010. "An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 2033-2041, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:10:p:2033-2041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(10)00227-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Ovchinnikova, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Lynne, Gary D. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2009. ""I don't want to be selling my soul": Two experiments in environmental economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 221-229, March.
    2. Sneddon, Chris & Howarth, Richard B. & Norgaard, Richard B., 2006. "Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 253-268, May.
    3. Hayes, William M. & Lynne, Gary D., 2004. "Towards a centerpiece for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 287-301, July.
    4. Dyer, Douglas & Kagel, John H & Levin, Dan, 1989. "A Comparison of Naive and Experienced Bidders in Common Value Offer Auctions: A Laboratory Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 108-115, March.
    5. Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000. "Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(3), pages 791-810.
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
    9. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    10. Urama, Kevin C. & Hodge, Ian D., 2006. "Are stated preferences convergent with revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 24-37, August.
    11. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
    12. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    13. Smith, Vernon L & Suchanek, Gerry L & Williams, Arlington W, 1988. "Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1119-1151, September.
    14. Gary D. Lynne, 2002. "Agricultural Industrialization: A Metaeconomics Look at the Metaphors by which we Live," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 410-427.
    15. David Bjornstad & Ronald Cummings & Laura Osborne, 1997. "A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 207-221, October.
    16. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    17. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Clarke, Andrea & Brown, Thomas C., 2003. "Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 63-76, February.
    18. Soderqvist, Tore, 2003. "Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 105-120, November.
    19. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2008. "Environmental regulation of households: An empirical review of economic and psychological factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 559-574, July.
    20. Robert D. Weaver, 1996. "Prosocial Behavior: Private Contributions to Agriculture's Impact on the Environment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 231-247.
    21. Maria L. Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey & Ron C. Mittelhammer, 2003. "Are Stated Preferences Good Predictors of Market Behavior?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 44-45.
    22. Kelly Maguire & Laura Taylor & Shiferaw Gurmu, 2003. "Do students behave like adults? Evidence from valuation experiments," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(12), pages 753-756.
    23. 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.
    24. Taylor, Laura O., 1998. "Incentive Compatible Referenda And The Valuation Of Environmental Goods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-8, October.
    25. Gary D. Lynne, 2002. "Agricultural Industrialization: A Metaeconomics Look at the Metaphors by which we Live," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 410-427.
    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. Shuai Yang & Lei Li & Jiemin Zhang, 2018. "Understanding Consumers’ Sustainable Consumption Intention at China’s Double-11 Online Shopping Festival: An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, May.
    2. Luigi Leclercq-Machado & Aldo Alvarez-Risco & Romina Gómez-Prado & Berdy Briggitte Cuya-Velásquez & Sharon Esquerre-Botton & Flavio Morales-Ríos & Camila Almanza-Cruz & Sarahit Castillo-Benancio & Mar, 2022. "Sustainable Fashion and Consumption Patterns in Peru: An Environmental-Attitude-Intention-Behavior Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.
    4. Md. Mahiuddin Sabbir & Khan Md Raziuddin Taufique, 2022. "Sustainable employee green behavior in the workplace: Integrating cognitive and non‐cognitive factors in corporate environmental policy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 110-128, January.
    5. Zhang, Junze & Luo, Mengting & Cao, Shixiong, 2018. "How deep is China’s environmental Kuznets curve? An analysis based on ecological restoration under the Grain for Green program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 647-653.
    6. Jana Poláková & Josef Soukup, 2020. "Results of Implementing Less-Favoured Area Subsidies in the 2014–2020 Time Frame: Are the Measures of Environmental Concern Complementary?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Natalia V. Czap & Hans J. Czap & Marianna Khachaturyan & Mark E. Burbach & Gary D. Lynne, 2018. "Experiments on empathy conservation: Implications for environmental policy," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(2), pages 71-77, September.
    8. Robert J. Sheeder & Gary D. Lynne, 2011. "Empathy-Conditioned Conservation: “Walking in the Shoes of Others” as a Conservation Farmer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 433-452.
    9. López-Mosquera, Natalia & Lera-López, Fernando & Sánchez, Mercedes, 2015. "Key factors to explain recycling, car use and environmentally responsible purchase behaviors: A comparative perspective," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 29-39.
    10. Saldarriaga-Isaza, Adrián & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & Arango, Santiago, 2015. "Phasing out mercury through collective action in artisanal gold mining: Evidence from a framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 406-415.
    11. Esmaeilpour Majid & Bahmiary Elahe, 2017. "Investigating the impact of environmental attitude on the decision to purchase a green product with the mediating role of environmental concern and care for green products," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 297-315, June.
    12. Thiermann, Ute B. & Sheate, William R., 2020. "Motivating individuals for social transition: The 2-pathway model and experiential strategies for pro-environmental behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    13. Busic-Sontic, Ante & Czap, Natalia V. & Fuerst, Franz, 2017. "The role of personality traits in green decision-making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 313-328.
    14. Saldarriaga-Isaza, Adrián & Arango, Santiago & Villegas-Palacio, Clara, 2015. "A behavioral model of collective action in artisanal and small-scale gold mining," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-109.
    15. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark E., 2015. "Walk in my shoes: Nudging for empathy conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 147-158.
    16. Jan Goebel & Christian Krekel & Tim Tiefenbach & Nicolas Ziebarth, 2015. "How natural disasters can affect environmental concerns, risk aversion, and even politics: evidence from Fukushima and three European countries," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 1137-1180, October.
    17. Ante Busic-Sontic & Franz Fuerst, 2017. "The Personality Profiles of Early Adopters of Energy-Efficient Technology," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 924, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    18. Emel Yarimoglu & Gul Binboga, 2019. "Understanding sustainable consumption in an emerging country: The antecedents and consequences of the ecologically conscious consumer behavior model," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 642-651, May.
    19. Marit Kristine List & Fabian T. C. Schmidt & Daria Mundt & Dennis Föste-Eggers, 2020. "Still Green at Fifteen? Investigating Environmental Awareness of the PISA 2015 Population: Cross-National Differences and Correlates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, April.
    20. Kingston, Suzanne & Wang, Zizhen, 2023. "How do nature governance rules affect compliance decisions? An experimental analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).

    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. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.
    2. Ovchinnikova, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Lynne, Gary D. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2009. ""I don't want to be selling my soul": Two experiments in environmental economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 221-229, March.
    3. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark E., 2015. "Walk in my shoes: Nudging for empathy conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 147-158.
    4. Czap, Hans J. & Czap, Natalia V., 2011. "Donating-selling tradeoffs and the influence of leaders in the environmental goods game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 743-752.
    5. Kelly Maguire & Laura Taylor & Shiferaw Gurmu, 2003. "Do students behave like adults? Evidence from valuation experiments," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(12), pages 753-756.
    6. 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.
    7. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    8. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    9. Jinkwon Lee & Uk Hwang, 2016. "Hypothetical Bias in Risk Preferences as a Driver of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Pay: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 789-811, December.
    10. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    11. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    12. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    13. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    15. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2004. "An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 313-335, March.
    16. Boyle, Kevin J. & Morrison, Mark & Taylor, Laura O., 2004. "Why Value Estimates Generated Using Choice Modelling Exceed Contingent Valuation: Further Experimental Evidence," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58370, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Svensson, Mikael, 2006. "The Value of a Statistical Life in Sweden Estimates from Two Studies using the "Certainty Approach" Calibration," Working Papers 2006:6, Örebro University, School of Business, revised 12 May 2009.
    18. Craig A. Bond & Dana L. Hoag & Jennifer Freeborn, 2011. "Are Agricultural PACs Monolithic? An Empirical Investigation of Political Contributions from Agricultural Subsectors," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 210-237, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Bosworth Ryan & Taylor Laura O., 2012. "Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-28, December.

    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:69:y:2010:i:10:p:2033-2041. 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.