An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern

Ecological Economics

Volumn 69, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 2033-2041

  Czap, Natalia V ^a   Czap, Hans J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental concern; Environmental experiment; Pecuniary incentives; Psychological traits; Revealed preferences; Stated preferences

Indexed keywords

DEMOGRAPHY; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; INCENTIVE; PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS; TRADE-OFF; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 77954625412     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Bjornstad D., Cummings R., Taylor L. A learning design for reducing hypothetical bias in the contingent valuation method. Environmental & Resource Economics 1997, 10(3):207-222.
2. Brechin S.R., Freeman D.A. Public support for both the environment and an anti-environmental president: possible explanations for the George W. Bush Anomaly. The Forum 2(1), article 6 2004.
3. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. 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 2001, 41:179-192.
4. Chouinard H.H., Paterson T., Wandschneider P.R., Ohler A.M. Will farmers trade profits for stewardship? Heterogeneous motivations for farm practice selection. Land Economics 2008, 84(1):66-82.
5. Corral-Verdugo V. Structural equation modeling. Handbook of Environmental Psychology 2002, 256-270. Wiley, New York. R.B. Bechtel, A. Churchman (Eds.).
6. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys?. Land Economics 1998, 74(2):203-215.
7. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review 1999, 83(3):649-665.
8. Cummings R.G., Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?. The American Economic Review 1995, 85(1):260-266.
9. Dunlap R.E., Jones R.E. Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. Handbook of Environmental Sociology 2002, 482-524. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. R.E. Dunlap, W. Michelson (Eds.).
10. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K. A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results: the 'new environmental paradigm'. Journal of Environmental Education 1978, 9:10-19.
11. Dyer D., Kagel J.H., Levin D. A comparison of naive and experienced bidders in common value offer auctions: a laboratory analysis. The Economic Journal 1989, 99:108-115.
12. Engel U., Plötschke M. Willingness to pay for the environment: social structure, value orientations and environmental behaviour in a multilevel perspective. Innovation 1998, 1(3):315-332.
13. Fischbacher U. z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 2007, 10(2):171-178.
14. Frey B.S., Oberholzer-Gee F. The cost of price intentives: an empirical analysis of crowding-out. The American Economic Review 2007, 87:746-755.
15. Gneezy U., Rustichini A. Pay enough or don't pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2000, 115:791-810.
16. Goldberg L.R., Johnson J.A., Eber H.W., Hogan R., Ashton M.C., Cloninger C.R., Gough H.C. The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality 2006, 40:84-96.
17. Guber D.L. Environmental concern and the dimensionality problem: a new approach to an old predicament. Social Science Quarterly 1996, 77:644-662.
18. Guber D.L. The Grassroots of a Green Revolution 2003, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Polling America on the Environment.
19. Hayes W.M., Lynne G.D. Towards a centerpiece for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 2004, 49:287-301.
20. Hopper J.R., Nielsen J.M. Recycling as altruistic behavior: normative and behavioural strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior 1991, 23:195-220.
21. IPCC Summary for policymakers. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis 2007, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, H.L. Miller (Eds.).
22. Johannesson M., Liljas B., Johansson P.-O. An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Applied Economics 1998, 30(5):643-647.
23. Jones R.E., Dunlap R.E. The social bases of environmental concern: have there been any changes?. Rural Sociology 1992, 57(1):28-47.
24. Kalinowski C.M., Lynne G.D., Johnson B. Recycling as a reflection of balanced self-interest-a test of the metaeconomics approach. Environment and Behavior 2006, 38(3):333-355.
25. Knutson B., Adams C., Fong G., Hommer D. Anticipation of increasing monetary reward selectively recruits nucleus accumbens. The Journal of Neuroscience 2001, 21:1-5.
26. Konchak W., Pascual U. Converging economic paradigms for a constructive environmental policy discourse. Environmental Science and Policy 2006, 9(1):10-21.
27. Loureiro M.L., McCluskey J.J., Mittelhammer R.C. Are stated preferences good predictors of market behavior?. Land Economics 2003, 79(1):44-55.
28. Lynne G.D. Agricultural industrialization: a metaeconomics look at the metaphors by which we live. Review of Agricultural Economics 2002, 24(2):410-427.
29. Maguire K.B., Taylor L.O., Gurmu G. Do students behave like adults? Evidence from valuation experiments. Applied Economics Letters 2003, 10:753-756.
30. McFarlane B.L., Boxall P.C. The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: an example from the forest sector. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:70-87.
31. Mohai P. Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources 1992, 5:1-19.
32. Olofsson A., Öhman S. General beliefs and environmental concern: transatlantic comparisons. Environment and Behavior 2006, 38:68-790.
33. Ovchinnikova N.V., Czap H.J., Lynne G.D., Larimer C.W. I don't want to be selling my soul: two experiments in environmental economics. Journal of Socio Economics 2009, 38(2):221-229.
34. Pettijohn, T.F., 1999. Psychology: A Connectext. Fourth edition. Dushkin/McGraw-Hill. Locus of control survey as of November 8, 2009 is available at http://198.45.22.27/connectext/psy/ch11/survey11.mhtml.
35. PEW research center for the People & the Press, 2009. Economy, jobs trump all other policy priorities in 2009. Retrieved on July 11, 2009. http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority.
36. Rosenberger R.S., Peterson G.L., Clarke A., Brown T.C. Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics. Ecological Economics 2003, 44:63-76.
37. Rotter J.B. Generalized expectancies of internal versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs 80 (whole no.609) 1966.
38. Sautter, J., Ovchinnikova, N.V., Kruse, C., Lynne, G.D., in press. Farmers' decisions regarding carbon sequestration: a metaeconomic view. Society and Natural Resources.
39. Schläpfer F., Roschewitz A., Hanley N. Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behavior. Ecological Economics 2004, 51:1-16.
40. Scholze M., Knorr W., Arnell N.W., Prentice I.C. A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. PNAS 2006, 103(35):13116-13120.
41. Schwartz S.H. Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1977, 10:221-279.
42. Smith V.L., Suchanek G.L., Williams A.W. Bubbles, crashes, and endogenous expectations in experimental spot asset markets. Econometrica 1988, 56(5):1119-1151.
43. Sneddon C., Howarth R.B., Norgaard R.B. Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics 2006, 57(2):253-268.
44. Söderqvist T. Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme. Ecological Economics 2003, 47:105-120.
45. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Black J.S. Support for environmental protection: the role of moral norms. Population and Environment 1986, 8:204-222.
46. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Kalof L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior 1993, 25(3):322-348.
47. Tankersly D., Stowe J., Huettel S.A. Altruism is associated with an increased neutral response to agency. Nature Neuroscience 2007, 10:150-151.
48. Taylor L.O. Incentive compatible referenda and the valuation of environmental goods. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 1998, 27(2):132-139.
49. Tindall D.B., Davies D., Mauboulès C. Activism and conservation behavior in an environmental movement: the contradictory effects of gender. Society and Natural Resources 2003, 16:909-932.
50. Urama K.C., Hodgeb I.D. Are stated preferences convergent with revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria. Ecological Economics 2006, 9:24-37.
51. Van den Bergh J.C.J.M. Environmental regulation of households: an empirical review of economic and psychological factors. Ecological Economics 2008, 66:559-574.
52. Vaske J.J., Donnelly M.P., Williams D.R., Jonder S. Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Society and Natural Resources 2001, 14:761-776.
53. Weaver R.D. Prosocial behavior: private contributions to agriculture's impact on the environment. Land Economics 1996, 72:231-247.
54. Xiao C., Dunlap R.E. Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross-nationally: a U.S.-Canadian comparison. Social Science Quarterly 2007, 88(2):471-493.