IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v114y2015icp180-187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Thinking past, thinking future: An empirical test of the effects of retrospective assessment on future preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Noblet, Caroline L.
  • Anderson, Mark W.
  • Teisl, Mario F.

Abstract

In recent work, we asserted that the largest group of stakeholders for sustainability science is future generations; yet intergenerational tradeoffs are often understudied. We proposed retrospective assessment as one potential means of clarifying what future preferences might be. Using a split-sample design we test the potential for retrospective assessment to influence citizens' preferences for future policy decision. We test the potential for retrospective assessment to yield increased or decreased support for policy. Our findings reveal context dependent public policy preferences where the presence of retrospective assessment significantly impacts citizens' preferences and outcomes appear strongly influenced by the attributes of the historical (or retrospective) scenario provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Noblet, Caroline L. & Anderson, Mark W. & Teisl, Mario F., 2015. "Thinking past, thinking future: An empirical test of the effects of retrospective assessment on future preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 180-187.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:114:y:2015:i:c:p:180-187
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915001585
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norton, Bryan & Costanza, Robert & Bishop, Richard C., 1998. "The evolution of preferences: Why 'sovereign' preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 193-211, February.
    2. Robert Sugden, 2005. "Coping with Preference Anomalies in Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Market-Simulation Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 129-160, September.
    3. Gowdy, John M. & Howarth, Richard B., 2007. "Sustainability and benefit-cost analysis: Theoretical assessments and policy options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 637-638, September.
    4. Caroline Noblet & Mario Teisl & Katherine Farrow & Jonathan Rubin, 2012. "Biofuels development in Maine: Using trees to oil the wheels of sustainability," Post-Print hal-01667414, HAL.
    5. Anderson, Mark W. & Teisl, Mario & Noblet, Caroline, 2012. "Giving voice to the future in sustainability: Retrospective assessment to learn prospective stakeholder engagement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 1-6.
    6. Vail, David & Hultkrantz, Lars, 2000. "Property rights and sustainable nature tourism: adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 223-242, November.
    7. Gowdy, John M., 2007. "Toward an experimental foundation for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 649-655, September.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Can Individuals Caring Little about Future Generations Serve As Their Representatives?," Working Papers SDES-2020-9, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2020.
    2. Carfora, Alfonso & Romano, Antonio A. & Ronghi, Monica & Scandurra, Giuseppe, 2017. "Renewable generation across Italian regions: Spillover effects and effectiveness of European Regional Fund," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 132-141.
    3. Nana Osei Bonsu & Jennifer TyreeHageman & Juliet Kele, 2020. "Beyond Agenda 2030: Future-Oriented Mechanisms in Localising the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Michalis Skourtos & Dimitris Damigos & Areti Kontogianni & Christos Tourkolias & Alistair Hunt, 2019. "Embedding Preference Uncertainty for Environmental Amenities in Climate Change Economic Assessments: A “Random” Step Forward," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    2. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    3. Charles Collet & Pascal Gastineau & Benoit Chèze & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Frederic Martinez, 2022. "Combining economics and psychology: Does CO2 framing strengthen pro-environmental behaviors?," CIRED Working Papers hal-03321706, HAL.
    4. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2021. "The Effect of Gain-loss Framing on Climate Policy Preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. James K. Hammitt, 2013. "Positive versus Normative Justifications for Benefit-Cost Analysis: Implications for Interpretation and Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 199-218, July.
    6. Marciano, James A. & Lilieholm, Robert J. & Teisl, Mario F. & Leahy, Jessica E. & Neupane, Binod, 2014. "Factors affecting public support for forest-based biorefineries: A comparison of mill towns and the general public in Maine, USA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 301-311.
    7. Ward, Clement E. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Dutton, Jennifer M., 2008. "Implicit Value of Retail Beef Product Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-18.
    8. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    10. Barnett, William A. & Serletis, Apostolos, 2008. "Consumer preferences and demand systems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 210-224, December.
    11. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Jitender Singh, 2016. "Quality of Public Goods, Public Policy and Human Development: A State-wise Analysis," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 10(2), pages 215-235, August.
    13. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    14. Trojanek, Radoslaw & Huderek-Glapska, Sonia, 2018. "Measuring the noise cost of aviation – The association between the Limited Use Area around Warsaw Chopin Airport and property values," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 103-114.
    15. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    16. Diane Coyle & Jen‐Chung Mei, 2023. "Diagnosing the UK productivity slowdown: which sectors matter and why?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(359), pages 813-850, July.
    17. Shimizu, Chihiro, 2014. "How Are Property Investment Returns Determined? : Estimating the Micro-Structure of Asset Prices, Property Income, and Discount Rates," HIT-REFINED Working Paper Series 12, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    18. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Peter Wheale & David Hinton, 2007. "Ethical consumers in search of markets," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 302-315, May.
    20. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:114:y:2015:i:c:p:180-187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.