IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i24p10847-d1541478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Awe on Willingness to Pay for Construction Waste Recycled Products: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study

Author

Listed:
  • Zhikun Ding

    (Key Laboratory for Resilient Infrastructures of Coastal Cities, Shenzhen University, Ministry of Education, Shenzhen 518060, China
    Sino-Australia Joint Research Center in BIM and Smart Construction, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
    Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Green, Efficient and Intelligent Construction of Underground Metro Station, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China)

  • Tao Huang

    (Sino-Australia Joint Research Center in BIM and Smart Construction, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
    Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Green, Efficient and Intelligent Construction of Underground Metro Station, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China)

  • Qifan Yang

    (Sino-Australia Joint Research Center in BIM and Smart Construction, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
    Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Green, Efficient and Intelligent Construction of Underground Metro Station, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China)

  • Lian Duan

    (School of Psychology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China)

Abstract

The development of the construction industry has generated a large amount of construction waste, and resource utilization of construction waste is an effective means of recycling. However, such recycled construction waste products still lack market competitiveness and recognition. Consumers’ psychological activities are often influenced by emotions, and the sense of awe plays an important role in green consumption. This study aims to investigate how the sense of awe affects consumers’ willingness to pay for construction waste recycled products. The study used functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) with a willingness-to-pay task paradigm for experiments, which aims to reveal how different types of awe affect willingness to pay for construction waste recycled products. The behavioral results showed that two conditions effectively induced awe and enhanced consumers’ willingness to pay, but the difference between nature awe and social awe was not significant. The neural activation results showed significant activation in the inferior prefrontal gyrus and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In particular, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity was significantly enhanced in the social awe condition. The functional connectivity results showed that, compared to the control condition experiment, the awe condition experiment triggered stronger functional connectivity. Therefore, exploring the effect of awe on the willingness to pay for construction waste recycled products can provide a basis reference for companies to develop marketing strategies and corporate pricing and promote the promotion and application of construction waste recycled products in the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhikun Ding & Tao Huang & Qifan Yang & Lian Duan, 2024. "The Effect of Awe on Willingness to Pay for Construction Waste Recycled Products: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10847-:d:1541478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10847/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10847/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xixiang Sun & Weihuan Su & Xiaodong Guo & Ziyuan Tian, 2021. "The Impact of Awe Induced by COVID-19 Pandemic on Green Consumption Behavior in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Flores, Nicholas E. & Carson, Richard T., 1997. "The Relationship between the Income Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 287-295, July.
    3. Khuong Ngoc Mai & Do Hanh Nhan & Phuong Thi Minh Nguyen, 2023. "Empirical Study of Green Practices Fostering Customers’ Willingness to Consume via Customer Behaviors: The Case of Green Restaurants in Ho Chi Minh City of Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-27, February.
    4. Kalisri Logeswaran Aravindan & Thurasamy Ramayah & Munusamy Thavanethen & Murali Raman & Narinasamy Ilhavenil & Sanmugam Annamalah & Yap Voon Choong, 2023. "Modeling Positive Electronic Word of Mouth and Purchase Intention Using Theory of Consumption Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ana Bobinac & Job Exel & Frans Rutten & Werner Brouwer, 2014. "The Value of a QALY: Individual Willingness to Pay for Health Gains Under Risk," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 75-86, January.
    2. Bobinac, Ana & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "GET MORE, PAY MORE? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 158-168.
    3. Pamela Wicker & John C. Whitehead & Bruce K. Johnson & Daniel S. Mason, 2016. "Willingness-To-Pay For Sporting Success Of Football Bundesliga Teams," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(3), pages 446-462, July.
    4. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    5. Jinzhi Zou & Khairul Manami Kamarudin & Jing Liu & Jiaqi Zhang, 2024. "Towards Sustainable Mobility: Determinants of Intention to Purchase Used Electric Vehicles in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Richard D. Smith, 2008. "Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the ‘good’ is described?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 607-617, May.
    7. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Datta, Nikhil, 2019. "Willing to pay for security: a discrete choice experiment to analyse labour supply preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103390, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Halicioglu, Ferda & Ketenci, Natalya, 2015. "The impact of international trade on environmental quality in transition countries: evidence from time series data during 1991-2013," MPRA Paper 71097, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2015.
    11. Baek, Jungho & Cho, Yongsung & Koo, Won W., 2009. "The environmental consequences of globalization: A country-specific time-series analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2255-2264, June.
    12. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    13. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    14. Blamey, Russell K. & Common, Mick S. & Quiggin, John C., 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 1-26, December.
    15. Susana Ferreira & Mirko Moro, 2013. "Income and Preferences for the Environment: Evidence from Subjective Well-Being Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(3), pages 650-667, March.
    16. Mark Morrison & Thomas Brown, 2009. "Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 307-326, November.
    17. Daniel Miles & Andrés Pereyra & Máximo Rossi, 2002. "The consistent estimation of income elasticity of environmental amenities in Uruguay," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 17(1), pages 67-89.
    18. Moritz A. Drupp & Martin C. Hänsel, 2021. "Relative Prices and Climate Policy: How the Scarcity of Nonmarket Goods Drives Policy Evaluation," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 168-201, February.
    19. Clara Delavallade, 2017. "Quality Health Care and Willingness to Pay for Health Insurance Retention: A Randomized Experiment in Kolkata Slums," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(5), pages 619-638, May.
    20. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, 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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10847-:d:1541478. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.