IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cgt/wpaper/2015-01.html

Environmental Art, Prior Knowledge about Climate Change, and Carbon Offsets

Author

Abstract

Using a contingent choice survey of US citizens, we investigate the influence of environmental art on individual willingness to purchase voluntary carbon offsets. In a split-sample experiment, we compare the stated preferences of survey respondents in two different treatment groups to the preferences of a control group. One treatment group is shown photographs that illustrate the impacts of climate change; the other is shown animated images that illustrate wind speeds and patterns for extreme weather events. While individuals seeing the photographs show a higher willingness to purchase voluntary offset than the control group, respondents seeing the animated images seem less willing to buy offsets. This result remains stable when accounting for preference heterogeneity related to prior knowledge about climate change issues. We hypothesize that the differential impacts of the two kinds of artistic images are due to a combination of factors influencing individual choices: emotional affect, cognitive interest, and preferences for the prevention of specific climate change impacts as well as, more generally, internalized and social norms for the mitigation of climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Blasch, Julia & Turner, Robert, 2015. "Environmental Art, Prior Knowledge about Climate Change, and Carbon Offsets," Working Papers 2015-01, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 25 Jan 2015.
    • Handle: RePEc:cgt:wpaper:2015-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://digitalcollections.colgate.edu/islandora/object/islandora%253A4721
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sandra Notaro & Maria De Salvo, 2021. "Does Music Affect Visitors’ Choices for the Management and Conservation of Ecosystem Services?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-13, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics

    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:cgt:wpaper:2015-01. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chad Sparber (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/declgus.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.