IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/105297.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Linking human destruction of nature to COVID-19 increases support for wildlife conservation policies

Author

Listed:
  • Shreedhar, Ganga
  • Mourato, Susana

Abstract

This paper investigates if narratives varying the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic affects pro-wildlife conservation outcomes. In a pre-registered online experiment (N = 1081), we randomly allocated subjects to either a control group or to one of three narrative treatment groups, each presenting a different likely cause of the COVID-19 outbreak: an animal cause; an animal and human cause (AHC); and an animal, human or lab cause. We found that the AHC narrative elicited significantly greater pro-conservation policy support, especially for bans in the commercial trade of wildlife, when compared to the control group. Possible mechanisms driving this effect are that AHC narratives were less familiar, elicited higher mental and emotional engagement, and induced feelings that firms and governments are responsible for mitigating wildlife extinction.

Suggested Citation

  • Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2020. "Linking human destruction of nature to COVID-19 increases support for wildlife conservation policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105297, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:105297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/105297/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer Edson Escalas, 2007. "Self-Referencing and Persuasion: Narrative Transportation versus Analytical Elaboration," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(4), pages 421-429, December.
    2. Bulte, Erwin & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 330-342, March.
    3. Bulte, Erwin & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 330-342, March.
    4. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler, 2020. "A Model of Competing Narratives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(12), pages 3786-3816, December.
    5. Fredrik Carlsson & Haoran He & Peter Martinsson, 2013. "Easy come, easy go," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 190-207, June.
    6. Jason Dana & Roberto Weber & Jason Kuang, 2007. "Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 67-80, October.
    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. Blanco, Esther & Baier, Alexandra & Holzmeister, Felix & Jaber-Lopez, Tarek & Struwe, Natalie, 2022. "Substitution of social sustainability concerns under the Covid-19 pandemic," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    2. Diekert, Florian & Goeschl, Timo & König-Kersting, Christian, 2024. "The Behavioral Economics of Extreme Event Attribution," Working Papers 0741, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. Veríssimo, Diogo & Blake, Katie & Flint, Hilary Byerly & Doughty, Hunter & Espelosin, Dulce & Gregg, Emily A. & Kubo, Takahiro & Mann-Lang, Judy & Perry, Laura R. & Selinske, Matthew J. & Shreedhar, G, 2024. "Changing human behavior to conserve biodiversity," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126106, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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. Ganga Shreedhar & Susana Mourato, 2020. "Linking Human Destruction of Nature to COVID-19 Increases Support for Wildlife Conservation Policies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 963-999, August.
    2. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    3. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    4. Leonardo-Fabio Morales & Mauricio Quiñones & Eleonora Dávalos & Luis-Felipe Gaviria, 2025. "Spatial spillover effects in the labour market in a middle-income country," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 53-71, January.
    5. Björn Vollan & Karla Henning & Deniza Staewa, 2017. "Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 500-518, October.
    6. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    7. Bulte, Erwin H. & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2004. "Do causes of environmental problems affect Hicksian equivalent surplus? Evidence from the field," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 157-162, November.
    8. Hermann Donfouet & Ephias Makaudze & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Eric Malin, 2011. "The determinants of the willingness-to-pay for community-based prepayment scheme in rural Cameroon," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 209-220, September.
    9. Daniel Rondeau & Christian A. Vossler, 2024. "Incentive compatibility and respondent beliefs: Consequentiality and game form," Working Papers 2024-02, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    10. Benno Torgler & Bruno S. Frey & Clevo Wilson, 2007. "Environmental and Pro-Social Norms: Evidence from 30 Countries," Working Papers 2007.84, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    12. Andor, Mark A. & Lange, Andreas & Sommer, Stephan, 2022. "Fairness and the support of redistributive environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    13. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    14. Interis, Matthew & Petrolia, Daniel, 2014. "The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary- and Multinomial-Choice Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-16.
    15. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    16. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    17. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    18. Benno Torgler & María A.García-Valiñas & Alison Macintyre, 2007. "Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect," CREMA Working Paper Series 2008-01, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    19. repec:zbw:rwimat:079 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Aadland, David & Caplan, Arthur J., 2006. "Cheap talk reconsidered: New evidence from CVM," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 562-578, August.
    21. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2017. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 777-796, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    narratives; communication; conversation; wildlife; extinction; conservation policy; environmental policy; prosocial behaviour; experiment; Covid-19; coronavirus;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • C99 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ehl:lserod:105297. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.