Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 134, Issue 1–2, pp 87–99 | Cite as

Can verifiable information cut through the noise about climate protection? An experimental auction test

  • Onur Sapci
  • Aaron D. Wood
  • Jason F. Shogren
  • Jolene F. Green
Article

Abstract

Using an experimental auction, we explore how verifiable information affects the willingness to pay (WTP) for two climate friendly goods given the politicized climate change debate. We test whether the dissemination of (scientific) verifiable information lets subjects cut through the media noise. We define our baseline by first examining how noisy information (pro and con) about climate change affects WTP. We then consider how third party verifiable information within this noisy information affects WTP. Our results suggest subjects could cut through noisy information to process verifiable information. We find a significant WTP premium for climate protection. The verifiable information treatment increases the premium for both shade-grown coffee (by 51 %) and recycled paper (by 48 %). This suggests the WTP premium for climate change depends on the available information flow and the characteristics of the climate friendly good.

Keywords

Information Treatment Auction Mechanism Climate Protection Bidding Behavior Recycle Paper 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Stroock (University of Wyoming) and the Rasmuson funds (University of Alaska-Anchorage) for the partial financial support. Thanks to Matt Rousu and the reviewers for helpful comments.

Supplementary material

10584_2015_1502_MOESM1_ESM.docx (218 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 218 kb)

References

  1. Achtnicht M (2012) German car buyers’ willingness to reduce CO2 emissions. Clim Chang 113:679–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilar F, Vlosky RP (2007) Consumer willingness to pay price premiums for environmentally certified wood products in the U.S. For Policy Econ 9:1100–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angrist J, Pischke S (2008) Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricists’ companion. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Baltzer K (2003) Estimating willingness to pay for food quality and safety from actual consumer behavior. Proceedings of the 83rd EAAE Seminar, Chania, 4–6 September, available at: www.maich/eaae.gr
  5. Blackman A, Ávalos-Sartorio B, Chow J. (2008) Land cover change in mixed agroforestry: shade coffee in El Salvador. Resources for the Future (RFF) Discussion Paper No. 08–30Google Scholar
  6. Blend J, Van Ravenswaay E (1999) Consumer demand for Eco-labeled apples: results from econometric estimation. Am J Agric Econ 81:1072–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Botzen W, Van den Bergh JCJM (2012) Risk attitudes to low probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance. J Econ Behav Organ 82:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boykoff M, Boykoff J (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Glob Environ Chang 14:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brossard D, Shanahan J, McComas K (2004) Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of climate change. Mass Commun Soc 7:359–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron A, Trivedi P (2010) Microeconometrics using Stata. Stata Pub Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  11. Carson R, Mitchell R (1993) The value of clean water: the public’s willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resour Res 29:2445–2454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbett J, Durfee J (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science. Sci Commun 26:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corsi A, Novelli S (2003) Consumers’ willingness to pay a price for organic beef meat, paper presented at the EAAE Congress, Zaragoza, August 28–31Google Scholar
  14. Dagnes A (2010) Politics on demand: the effects of 24-hour news on American politics. Praeger, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  15. Diederich J, Goeschl T (2014) Willingness to pay for voluntary climate action and its determinants: field-experimental evidence. Environ Resour Econ 57:405–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006) Solid waste management and greenhouse gases: a life-cycle assessment of emissions and sinks. Staff ReportGoogle Scholar
  17. Essoussi L, Linton J (2010) New or recycled products: how much are consumers willing to pay? J Consum Mark 27:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang J, Haab T, Whitehead J (1997) Willingness to pay for quality improvements: should revealed and stated preference data be combined? J Environ Econ Manag 34:240–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huffman W, Tegene A (2002) Public acceptance of and benefits from agricultural biotechnology: A key role for verifiable information. Market development for genetically modified good (V Santaniello, R Evenson, D Zilberman, eds). Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International, 179–190Google Scholar
  20. Johnson E, Nemet G (2010) Willingness to pay for climate change policy: A review of studies, La Follette School Working Paper No.2010–011Google Scholar
  21. Johnston R, Wessells C, Donath H, Asche F (2001) Measuring consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: an international comparison. J Agric Resour Econ 26:20–39Google Scholar
  22. Kotchen M, Boyle K, Leiserowitz A (2013) Willingness to pay and policy instrument choice for climate change policy in the United States. Energy Policy 55:617–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laroche M, Bergeron J, Barbaro-Forleo G (2001) Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J Consum Mark 18:503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loureiro M, McCluskey J, Mittelhammer R (2002) Will consumers pay a premium for Eco-labeled apples? J Consum Aff 36:203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lusk J, Shogren J (2007) Experimental auctions: methods and applications in economic and marketing research. Cambridge University Press, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McConnell K (1990) Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 18:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mooney C, Duval R (1993) Bootstrapping: a nonparametric approach to statistical inference. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelkin D (1995) Selling science. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Nimon W, Beghin J (1999) Are eco-labels valuable? Evidence from the apparel industry. Am J Agric Econ 81:801–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rousu M, Huffman W, Shogren J, Tegene A (2007) Effects and value of verifiable information in a controversial market: evidence from lab auctions of genetically modified food. Econ Inq 45:409–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schelling T (1992) Some economics of global warming. Am Econ Rev 82:1–14Google Scholar
  32. Shogren J, Toman M (2000) Climate change policy. Public policies for environmental protection 2nd ed. (P Portney, R Stavins, Eds.). Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Shogren J, Margolis M, Koo C, List J (2001) A random nth-price auction. J Econ Behav Organ 46:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vlosky R, Ozanne L, Fontenot R (1999) A conceptual model of US consumer willingness-to-pay for environmentally certified wood products. J Consum Manag 16:122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whitehead J (1995) Willingness to pay for quality improvements: comparative statics and interpretation of contingent valuation results. Land Econ 71:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Onur Sapci
    • 1
  • Aaron D. Wood
    • 2
  • Jason F. Shogren
    • 3
  • Jolene F. Green
    • 3
  1. 1.Economics DepartmentHamilton CollegeClintonUSA
  2. 2.Economics DepartmentUniversity of TampaTampaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Economics and FinanceUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations