How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment

Respondents reported willingness to pay (WTP) for mitigating carbon dioxide emissions after structured group discussion or without this deliberation. Deliberation did not affect mean or median WTP, but it increased the number of issues respondents considered, with some issues becoming more frequently considered and others less. Survey-only respondents considered issues relevant for responding to a request for a charitable contribution; group-mode participants considered issues relevant for a public policy assessment. Findings suggest that ordinary citizens can offer valid input to environmental policy decisions, but that framing effects in ordinary WTP surveys may prevent them from providing such input. (JEL Q51, Q54)

[1]  G. Garrod,et al.  Economic Valuation of the Environment , 1999 .

[2]  B. Tonn,et al.  The values jury to aid natural resource decisions , 1995 .

[3]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies , 1993 .

[4]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes , 1974 .

[5]  H. Florig,et al.  A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  C. Plott,et al.  The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the 'Endowment Effect,' Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations , 2005 .

[7]  Economic Valuation of the Environment: How Citizens Make Sense of Contingent Valuation Questions , 2003, Land Economics.

[8]  Erwin H. Bulte,et al.  The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values : Evidence from a field study , 2005 .

[9]  McCauley,et al.  Group Dynamics in Janis's Theory of Groupthink: Backward and Forward. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[10]  R Flanigan,et al.  What should we do? , 1999, Bioethics forum.

[11]  Morton B. Brown,et al.  Robust Tests for the Equality of Variances , 1974 .

[12]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Group Techniques for Program Planning , 1975 .

[13]  F. C. P. Motta.  The theory of communicative action , 1991 .

[14]  Susan M. Chilton,et al.  Do focus groups contribute anything to the contingent valuation process , 1999 .

[15]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[16]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Diagnosing groups: the pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  Clive L. Spash,et al.  Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Practice , 2007 .

[18]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Test of the Contribution Model , 1994 .

[19]  Marc D. Street.  Groupthink , 1997 .

[20]  M. Sagoff.  Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing , 1998 .

[21]  P. Stern.  The Social Construction of the Economy , 1990 .

[22]  H. Levene.  Robust tests for equality of variances , 1961 .

[23]  M. Sagoff,et al.  The Economy of the Earth: The Allocation and Distribution of Resources , 2007 .

[24]  M. Kaplowitz.  Identifying ecosystem services using multiple methods: Lessons from the mangrove wetlands of Yucatan, Mexico , 2000 .

[25]  Jürgen Habermas,et al.  Reason and the rationalization of society , 1984 .

[26]  Jürgen Habermas,et al.  Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics , 1993 .

[27]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Policy Forum Science, values, and biodiversity , 1998 .

[28]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[29]  N. Smith.  Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics , 1994 .

[30]  N. Maier.  Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: the need for an integrative function. , 1967, Psychological review.

[31]  Joseph Persky,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Classical Creed , 2001 .

[32]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation , 2003 .

[33]  Dale Whittington,et al.  Giving Respondents Time to Think in Contingent Valuation Studies: A Developing Country Application* , 1992 .

[34]  J. Dewey,et al.  The Public and its Problems , 1927 .

[35]  B Fischhoff,et al.  A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[36]  J. Habermas.  The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society , 1986 .

[37]  A. Sen,et al.  Rationality and Freedom , 2002 .

[38]  J. Payne,et al.  How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation , 1994 .

[39]  R. Scott,et al.  Using Contingent Valuation to Measure User and Nonuser Benefits: An Application to Public Transit , 2002 .

[40]  J. Hoehn,et al.  Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation , 2001 .

[41]  Donald J. Pierce,et al.  Democracy in America , 2018, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[42]  R Gregory,et al.  Testing a Structured Decision Approach: Value‐Focused Thinking for Deliberative Risk Communication , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[43]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Public Attitudes to Contingent Valuation and Public Consultation1 , 1999, Environmental Values.

[44]  The Social Rate of Discount , 1971 .

[45]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Toward a theory of choice: Socially embedded preference construction , 1995 .

[46]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation , 2005 .

[47]  C. Spash.  Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change , 2007 .

[48]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[49]  Stephen A. Marglin,et al.  The Social Rate of Discount and The Optimal Rate of Investment , 1963 .

[50]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[51]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Information Pooling: When It Impacts Group Decision Making , 1998 .

[52]  R. Howarth,et al.  Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation , 2002 .

[53]  A. Sen,et al.  Environmental Evaluation and Social Choice: Contingent Valuation and the Market Analogy , 1995 .

[54]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets , 2001 .

[55]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Improving the Process of Valuing Non-Market Benefits: Combining Citizens’ Juries with Choice Modelling , 2006, Land Economics.

[56]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

[57]  D. Whittington,et al.  “Participatory” Research for Development Projects: A Comparison of the Community Meeting and Household Survey Techniques , 1998, Economic Development and Cultural Change.

[58]  J. Burgess,et al.  "I struggled with this money business”: Respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation , 2000 .

[59]  M. Morris.  Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .

[60]  Matthew A. Wilson,et al.  A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent , 2006, Land Economics.

[61]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[62]  C. Starmer,et al.  Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 2005 .

[63]  D. Morgan.  Focus groups as qualitative research / by Morgan, David L. , 1988 .

[64]  K. McConnell,et al.  A Review of Wta/Wtp Studies , 2000 .

[65]  D. Myers,et al.  The group polarization phenomenon. , 1976 .