Contingent valuation surveys generally elicit stated preferences by asking how much a respondent would be willing to pay for an environmental improvement. By drawing on linguistic theory, we propose that the modal phrasing of this question establishes a particular type of commitment towards a hypothetical payment, namely a subjective want or desire. Based on the idea that beyond subjective desires, considerations about what is morally adequate may guide expressed values and that elicitation of these can be linguistically facilitated, we employ an experimental framework to investigate the effects of different modals (willing, should and appropriate) in the elicitation question on stated preferences. We find that elicited amounts with appropriate are higher than those elicited with willing and should for environmental improvements more associated with use values, while differences are non-significant for environmental improvements more associated with non-use values. We discuss the implications of our findings for stated preference studies, as well as the potential broader theoretical implications that our study entails regarding linguistic representations of the moral entrenchment of environmental values.
Álvarez-FarizoBGilJMHowardB (2009) Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops. Ecological Economics68(3): 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.012.
2.
Arias-ArévaloPGómez-BaggethunEMartín-LópezB, et al. (2018) Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environmental Values27(1): 29–53. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15144698637513.
3.
ArrowKSolowRPortneyPR, et al. (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register58(10): 4601–4614.
BrownTCChampPABishopRC, et al. (1996) Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?Land Economics72(2): 152–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146963.
6.
BunseLRendonOLuqueS (2015) What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review. Ecosystem Services14: 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.004.
7.
CarianiFKaufmannMKaufmannS (2013) Deliberative modality under epistemic uncertainty. Linguistics and Philosophy36(3): 225–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9134-4.
8.
CarsonRT (2000) Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Environmental Science and Technology34(8): 1413–1418. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/es990728j
9.
CarsonRT (2012) Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren't available. Journal of Economic Perspectives26(4): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27.
10.
DasguptaP (2021) The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. London: HM Treasury.
11.
EaglyAHChaikenS (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt brace Jovanovich college publishers.
FarrellKN (2007) Living with living systems: the co-evolution of values and valuation. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology14(1): 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469704.
GiannakidouAMariA (2016) Epistemic future and epistemic MUST: Nonveridicality, evidence, and partial knowledge. In: BlaszackJ (ed) Mood, Aspect, Modality Revisited. New answers to old questions. University of Chicago Press, 75–124.
16.
GiannakidouAMariA (2021) Truth and Veridicality in Grammar and Thought. The University of Chicago Press.
Gómez-BaggethunERuiz-PérezM (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography35(5): 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311421708.
19.
GregoryRLichtensteinSSlovicP (1993) Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty7(2): 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01065813.
20.
HanemannWM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives8(4): 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.19.
21.
HansjürgensBSchröter-SchlaackCBerghöferA, et al. (2017) Justifying social values of nature: economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosystem Services23: 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.003.
22.
HartRLatacz-LohmannU (2001) The indifference curve, motivation, and morality in contingent valuation. Environmental Values10(2): 225–242. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327101129340813.
23.
JacobsM (1994) The Limits to Neoclassicism: towards an institutional environmental economics. In: RedcliffMBentonT (eds) Social Theory and the Global Environment. London: Routledge, 67–91.
24.
JohnstonRJBoyleKJAdamowiczW, et al. (2017) Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists4(2): 319–405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/691697
25.
KahnemanDKnetschJLThalerRH (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy98(6): 1325–1348. https://doi.org/10.1086/261737.
26.
KahnemanDRitovI (1994) Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty9(1): 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01073401.
27.
KahnemanDRitovIJacowitzKE, et al. (1993) Stated willingness to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective. Psychological Science4(5): 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00570.x.
28.
KahnemanDRitovISchkadeD, et al. (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: an analysis of dollar responses to public issues. In: Elicitation of preferences. Luxemburg: Springer, 203–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1406-8_8
KenterJO (2016) Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services21: 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010.
31.
KenterJOJobstvogtNWatsonV, et al. (2016b) The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling. Ecosystem Services21: 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.006.
KrutillaJV (1967) Conservation reconsidered. The American Economic Review57(4): 777–786.
36.
LienhoopNVölkerM (2016) Preference refinement in deliberative choice experiments for ecosystem service valuation. Land Economics92(3): 555–577. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.92.3.555.
37.
LightA (2002) Contemporary environmental ethics from metaethics to public philosophy. Metaphilosophy33(4): 426–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00238.
MeyerhoffJMørkbakMROlsenSB (2014) A meta-study investigating the sources of protest behaviour in stated preference surveys. Environmental and Resource Economics58(1): 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9688-1.
40.
NiemeyerSSpashCL (2001) Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19(4): 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1068/c9s.
41.
NuytsJ (2008) Qualificational meanings, illocutionary signals, and the cognitive planning of language use. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6(1): 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.09nuy.
42.
NuytsJBylooPDiepeveenJ (2010) On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics42(1): 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.012.
43.
NyborgK (2000) Homo economicus and homo politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environ-mental values. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization42(3): 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-2681(00)00091-3.
KenterJOBryceRChristieM, et al. and . . . others (2016a) Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions. Ecosystem Services21: 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006.
47.
PalanSSchitterC (2018) Prolific. ac — a subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance17: 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004.
48.
PalmerFR (2001) Mood and modality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press.
49.
PearceDWMoranD (1994) The economic value of biodiversity. London: Routledge.
50.
PelletierDKraakVMcCullumC, et al. (1999) The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: An empirical study from New York’s north country. Policy Sciences32(2): 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004641300366.
51.
PeruginiMBagozziRP (2004) The distinction between desires and intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology34(1): 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.186.
52.
PortnerP (2009) Modality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
53.
RyanAMSpashCL (2011) Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values. Journal of Economic Psychology32(5): 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.004.
54.
SagoffM (1988) The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
SagoffM (1998) Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics24(2-3): 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00144-4.
56.
SchläpferF (2006) Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics57(3): 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.019.
SchwarzNStrackF (1991) Context effects in attitude surveys: Applying cognitive theory to social research. European Review of Social Psychology2(1): 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000015.
SpashCL (2007) Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics63(4): 690–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.014.
62.
SzabóZ (2011) Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecological Economics72: 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.025.
VatnA (2005) Institutions and the Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
65.
VatnABromleyDW (1994) Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management26(2): 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1008.
66.
VellemanJDBratmanME (1991) Intention, plans, and practical reason. The Philosophical Review100(2): 277–284. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185304.
67.
VerstraeteJ-C (2005) Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics37(9): 1401–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003.
68.
VincentMKoesslerAK (2019) Moral Pluralism in Behavioural Spillovers: Across-Disciplinary Account of the Multiple Ways in Which We Engage in Moral Valuing. Environmental Values. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3354945.
69.
Von NeumannJMorgensternO (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ZhangSSchmittB (1998) Language-dependent classification: The mental representation of classifiers in cognition, memory, and ad evaluations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied4(4): 375. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.4.4.375.
72.
ZhangSSchmittBHHaleyH (2003) Language and culture: Linguistic effects on consumer behavior in international marketing research. Handbook of Research in International Marketing: 228.
73.
ZografosCHowarthR (2008) Deliberative ecological economics. Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
