IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/rwirep/287767.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using framed field experiments to evaluate real-world policy interventions: A case study on changing environmental preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Reitmann, Ann-Kristin
  • Sievert, Maximiliane

Abstract

Many policy interventions in the environmental sector aim at changing environmental preferences, because these provide the basis for adopting environmental conservation behavior or technologies. To evaluate these changes, standard measurement tools in survey-based impact evaluations have their limitations. We discuss the potential of framed field experiments as an alternative to attain unbiased outcome measures, and present a case study from an impact evaluation in the Colombian coffee sector. While clear advantages exist, we show that indicators from framed field experiments require substantial sample sizes to provide well-powered results. Moreover, preference indicators are highly context specific, which calls for an elaborated framing to attain the intended kind of preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Reitmann, Ann-Kristin & Sievert, Maximiliane, 2024. "Using framed field experiments to evaluate real-world policy interventions: A case study on changing environmental preferences," Ruhr Economic Papers 1072, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:rwirep:287767
    DOI: 10.4419/96973244
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/287767/1/1884511856.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4419/96973244?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2012. "Self-image and valuation of moral goods: Stated versus actual willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 879-891.
    2. Gautam Rao, 2019. "Familiarity Does Not Breed Contempt: Generosity, Discrimination, and Diversity in Delhi Schools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(3), pages 774-809, March.
    3. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2016. "Editor's Choice The Use of Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 206-225.
    4. Simone Schaner, 2017. "The Cost of Convenience?: Transaction Costs, Bargaining Power, and Savings Account Use in Kenya," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(4), pages 919-945.
    5. Karapetyan, Deanna & d'Adda, Giovanna, 2014. "Determinants of conservation among the rural poor: A charitable contribution experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 74-87.
    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. Schleich, Joachim & Alsheimer, Sven, 2024. "The relationship between willingness to pay and carbon footprint knowledge: Are individuals willing to pay more to offset their carbon footprint if they learn about its size and distance to the 1.5 °C," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    2. Aksoy, Billur & Chadd, Ian & Koh, Boon Han, 2023. "Sexual identity, gender, and anticipated discrimination in prosocial behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Kai Barron & Heike Harmgart & Steffen Huck & Sebastian O. Schneider & Matthias Sutter, 2023. "Discrimination, Narratives, and Family History: An Experiment with Jordanian Host and Syrian Refugee Children," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(4), pages 1008-1016, July.
    4. Da Ke, 2021. "Who Wears the Pants? Gender Identity Norms and Intrahousehold Financial Decision‐Making," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(3), pages 1389-1425, June.
    5. Leonardo Bursztyn & Thomas Chaney & Tarek Alexander Hassan & Aakaash Rao, 2021. "The Immigrant Next Door: Long-Term Contact, Generosity, and Prejudice," NBER Working Papers 28448, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Zenou, Yves & Boucher, Vincent & Tumen, Semih & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Wahba, Jackline, 2020. "Ethnic Mixing in Early Childhood: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment and a Structural Model," CEPR Discussion Papers 15528, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Shrestha, Sujata & Shrestha, Uttam Babu & Shrestha, Bibek Raj & Maharjan, Shirish & Udas, Erica & Aryal, Kamal, 2024. "Determinants of adoption of climate resilient agricultural solutions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    8. Bagues, Manuel & Roth, Christopher, 2020. "Interregional Contact and National Identity," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 526, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    9. Marinho Bertanha & Eunyi Chung, 2023. "Permutation Tests at Nonparametric Rates," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 118(544), pages 2833-2846, October.
    10. Oosterbeek, Hessel & Sóvágó, Sándor & van der Klaauw, Bas, 2021. "Preference heterogeneity and school segregation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    11. Cátia Batista & Marcel Fafchamps & Pedro C Vicente, 2022. "Keep It Simple: A Field Experiment on Information Sharing among Strangers [Changing Saving and Investment Behavior: The Impact of Financial Literacy Training and Reminders on Micro-Businesses]," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 36(4), pages 857-888.
    12. Carvajal, Daniel, 2024. "Exposure to diversity, social proximity and ingroup bias," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 14/2024, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    13. Carlotta Nani, 2024. "Perceived abilities and gender stereotypes within the household: experimental evidence from Bangladesh," IHEID Working Papers 19-2024, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.
    14. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.
    15. Alberto Alesina & Marco Tabellini, 2024. "The Political Effects of Immigration: Culture or Economics?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(1), pages 5-46, March.
    16. Valerie Michelman & Joseph Price & Seth D Zimmerman, 2023. "Old Boys’ Clubs and Upward Mobility Among the Educational Elite," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 137(2), pages 845-909.
    17. Matilde Giaccherini & David H. Herberich & David Jimenez-Gomez & John A. List & Giovanni Ponti & Michael K. Price, 2019. "The Behavioralist Goes Door-To-Door: Understanding Household Technological Diffusion Using a Theory-Driven Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 26173, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    19. Xu, Bin & Ma, Qingxuan & Yu, Qianbin, 2024. "Does the proportion of rural students affect the performance of urban students? ––Evidence from urban schools in China," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    20. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Field experiment; environmental preferences; impact evaluation; lessons learned; behavioral economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General

    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:zbw:rwirep:287767. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rwiesde.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.