Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 407-421

  Carlsson, Fredrik ^a   García, Jorge H ^b   Löfgren, Åsa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD JAVERIANA   (Colombia)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Conformity; Environmental goods

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; ECOLOGY; LABELS;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; COFFEE PRODUCTS; CONFORMITY; CONSUMER CHOICE; ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS; GREEN CONSUMERISMS; GREEN PRODUCTS; SOCIAL CONTEXT;

COSTS;

COFFEE; CONSUMER-RESOURCE INTERACTION; DECISION MAKING; DEMAND ANALYSIS; ECOLABELING; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LEGUME; MARKET SYSTEM; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC GOODS; TRADE-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 77958484231     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9385-2     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Akerlof G, Kranton R (2000) Economics and identity. Q J Econ 115: 715-753.
2. Albrecht J, Björklund A, Vroman S (2003) Is there a glass ceiling in sweden?. J Lab Econ 21: 145-177.
3. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8: 83-110.
4. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2005) How much do we care about absolute versus relative income and consumption?. J Econ Behav Organ 56: 405-421.
5. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008) Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in costa rica. J Public Econ 92: 1047-1060.
6. Amacher G, Koskela E, Ollikainen M (2004) Environmental quality competition and eco-labeling. J Environ Econ Manag 47: 284-306.
7. Andreoni J, Vesterlund L (2001) Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Q J Econ 116: 293-312.
8. Arnot C, Boxall P, Cash S (2006) Do ethical consumers care about price? A revealed preference analysis of fair trade coffee purchases. Can J Agri Econ 54: 555-565.
9. Bacon C (2005) Confronting the coffee crisis: can fair trade, organic, and specialty coffees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability in northern nicaragua?. World Dev 33: 491-511.
10. Bardsley N, Sausgruber R (2005) Conformity and reciprocity in public good provision. J Econ Psych 26: 664-681.
11. Bernheim B (1994) A theory of conformity. J Polit Econ 102: 841-877.
12. Bjorner TB, Hansen LG, Russell CS (2004) Environmental labeling and consumers' choice-an empirical analysis of the effect of the nordic swan. J Environ Econ Manag 47: 411-424.
13. Blend JR, van Ravenswaay EO (1999) Measuring consumer demand for ecolabeled apples. Amer J Agr Econ 81: 1072-1077.
14. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2005) Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett 89: 147-152.
15. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2007) Consumer benefits of labels and bans on gm foods-choice experiments with swedish consumers. Amer J Agr Econ 89: 152-161.
16. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?. J Environ Econ Manag 41: 179-192.
17. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Heal Econ 12: 281-294.
18. Carsson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preferences questions. Environ Resour Econ 37: 181-210.
19. Cremer H, Thisse J-F (1999) On the taxation of polluting products in a differentiated industry. Europ Econ Rev 43: 575-594.
20. Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J Econ Lit 47: 448-474.
21. Durevall D (2007) Competition in the swedish coffee market 1978-2002. Int J Ind Organ 25: 721-739.
22. European Coffee Federation (2009) European coffee report 2008. Rijswijk. Available at http://www. ecf-coffee. org/ecf/documents/European_Coffee_Report_2008. pdf.
23. Frey B, Meier S (2004) Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: testing conditional cooperation in a field experiment. Amer Econ Rev 94: 1717-1722.
24. Greene W (2000) Econometric analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
25. Hanemann M (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Amer J Agr Econ 66: 332-341.
26. Heinrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H (2001) In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Amer Econ Rev 91: 73-78.
27. Huang CL (1996) Consumer preferences and attitudes towards organically grown produce. Europ Rev Agr Econ 23: 331-342.
28. Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 33: 307-317.
29. International Coffee Organization ICO (2005) Overview of the coffee market, document ICC-93-5. Available at http://dev. ico. org/documents/icc93-5e. pdf.
30. Johansson-Stenman O, Carlsson F, Daruvala D (2002) Measuring future grandparents' preferences for equality and relative standing. Econ J 112: 362-383.
31. Johansson-Stenman O, Svedsäter H (2008) Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: the importance of cognitive consistency. BE J Econ Anal Poli 8, Article 41.
32. Johnston RJ, Wessells CR, Donath H, Asche F (2001) Measuring consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: an international comparison. J Agr Resou Econ 26: 20-39.
33. Ladenburg J, Olsen SB (2008) Gender specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manag 56: 275-285.
34. Levitt S, List J (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. J Econ Pers 21: 153-174.
35. Lewin B, Giovannucci D, Varangis P (2004) Coffee markets: new paradigms in global supply and demand. Agriculture and rural development Discussion Paper 3. World Bank, Washington, DC.
36. List J (2004) Young, selfish and male: field evidence of social preferences. Econ J 114: 121-149.
37. List J, Sinha P, Taylor M (2005) Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: evidence from field experiments. Adv Econ Anal Pol, 6, Article 2.
38. Loureiro ML, Lotade J (2005) Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience?. Ecolog Econ 53: 129-138.
39. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Lusk J, Schroeder T (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef-steaks. Amer J Agr Econ 85: 840-856.
41. Manski CF (2000) Economic analysis of social interactions. J Econ Pers 14: 115-136.
42. Nimon W, Beghin J (1999) Are eco-labels valuable? Evidence from the apparel industry. Amer J Agr Econ 81: 801-811.
43. Shang J, Croson R (2009) Field experiments in charitable contribution: the impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Econ J 199: 1422-1439.
44. Solnick S, Hemenway D (1998) Is more always better? A survey on positional concerns. J Econ Behav Organ 37: 373-383.
45. Solnick S, Hemenway D (2005) Are positional concerns stronger in some domains than in others. Amer Econ Rev 95: 147-151.
46. Sterner T (2003) Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. RFF Press, Washington.
47. Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res 30: 305-314.
48. Teisl MF, Roe B, Hicks RL (2002) Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe labeling. J Environ Econ Manag 43: 339-359.
49. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
50. Venkatesan M (1966) Experimental study of consumer behavior conformity and independence. J Mark Res 3: 384-387.
51. Zelezny L, Chua P, Aldrich C (2000) Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J Soc Issues 56: 443-457.