Browsing by Author "Kataria, Mitesh"

Now showing 1 - 20 of 23

Assessing management options for weed control with demanders and non-demanders in a choice experiment
(2006) Kataria, Mitesh; Carlsson, Fredrik; Department of Economics
The yellow floating heart is a water weed causing nuisance problems in Swedish watercourses. An economic analysis of this is required where various management options are considered. The benefits of a management program are to a large extent recreational. Using a choice experiment we estimate the benefits of a weed management program and perform a cost-benefit analysis of different management programs. In order to be able to distinguish between those who have a demand for a program from those who do not, we introduce a way to distinguish demanders from non-demanders in the choice experiments. The advantage of our suggested approach is that we can more clearly distinguish between conditional and unconditional willingness to pay. In the empirical study we find that a share of the respondents are non-demanders. The demander willingness to pay still justifies cutting the weed in certain places in the lake, given that we use a simple cost-benefit rule.
Can teaching children about the environment influence household behavior? Experiments in Swedish schools
(2024-10-30) Ek, Claes; Söderberg, Magnus; Kataria, Mitesh; Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg
In two separate field experiments with Swedish school children aged 10-16, we evaluate variants of an Environmental Education Program (EEP) designed to reduce household waste. We match the addresses of participating students with high-resolution municipal administrative records on collected household waste. This allows us to estimate causal effects on the waste generated in households where a child was treated. Both experiments produce null effects on waste generation. In the second experiment, we are also able to estimate the effect of regular environmental education within the Swedish school curriculum, and find only weak evidence that this affects household waste.
Confirmation: What's in the evidence?
(2014-05) Kataria, Mitesh; Dept. of Economics, University of Gothenburg
The difference between accommodated evidence (i.e. when evidence is known first and a hypothesis is proposed to explain and fit the observations) and predicted evidence (i.e., when evidence verifies the prediction of a hypothesis formulated before observing the evidence) is investigated. According to Bayesian confirmation theory, accommodated and predicted evidence constitute equally strong confirmation. Using a survey experiment on a sample of students, however, it is shown that predicted evidence is perceived to constitute stronger confirmation than accommodated evidence and in line with the decision analytical framework that is presented we show that predictions work as a signal about the scientists’ knowledge which in turn provides stronger confirmation. The existence of such an indirect relationship between hypothesis and evidence can be considered to impose undesirable subjectivity and arbitrariness on questions of evidential support. Evidential support is ideally a direct and impersonal relationship between hypothesis and evidence and not an indirect and personal relationship as it has shown to be in this paper.
Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden’s environmental quality objectives
(2008-02-20T09:59:46Z) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina
In this paper we use follow-up questions to investigate whether attributes have been ignored in a choice experiment on environmental goods. This information is subsequently used in the estimation of the model by restricting the individual parameters for the ignored attributes to zero. We then separately estimate the marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for the whole sample and for those who took all attributes into account. We find no significant differences in mean marginal WTP between these two models. However, when taking the shares of respondents who considered both the environmental and the cost attributes (52 -69 percent of the respondents) into account, then the marginal WTPs for each attribute change if the respondents who ignored the attributes have a zero WTP. Hence, not taking into account whether respondents have considered the attribute could give biased welfare estimates and wrong policy implications. We also investigate whether any socioeconomic characteristics can explain who ignores attributes, and find that very few of the variables are significant, indicating that we can only partly explain the behavior.
Difference in Preferences or in Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public
(2016-08) Eggert, Håkan; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Dept. of Economics, University of Gothenburg
Do Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bureaucrats represent the general public or are they more in line with an interest group? We study preferences for environmental policy using a choice experiment (CE) on three populations; the general public, Swedish EPA bureaucrats, and recreational anglers. We also test for existence of multiple preference orderings, i.e., whether responses differ depending on the decision role assigned. Half of the respondents were asked to choose the alternatives that best corresponded with their opinion, and the other half was asked to take the role of a policymaker and make recommendations for environmental policy. The SEPA bureaucrats have the highest marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) to improve environmental quality. These differences are robust and not due to differences in socio-economic characteristics across the populations. We found little evidence of multiple preference orderings, but in one case the difference in MWTP between the two roles was substantial.
Do EPA administrators recommend environmental policies that citizens want?
(2008-04-14T13:28:50Z) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina
We investigate whether Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator preferences regarding improvements in environmental quality differ from citizen preferences. The scope and significance of the possible difference are assessed by conducting identical choice experiments (CE) on a random sample of Swedish citizens and a random sample of administrators working at the Swedish EPA. The experiment concerns two environmental quality objectives: a Balanced Marine Environment and Clean Air. The EPA administrators were asked to choose the alternatives they would recommend as a policy, while the citizens were asked to act as private persons. We find that the rankings of attributes differ between the two groups, and that there are significant differences in the willingness to pay (WTP) for particular attributes. EPA administrators have a higher WTP for five out of the seven attributes, and in some cases the difference is not only significant but also substantial. We also asked the administrators to motivate their CE choices, and the main motive was ecological sustainability.
Do you trust me? – Go Fish! A Study on Trust and Fisheries Management
(2016-10) Eggert, Håkan; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Dept. of Economics, University of Gothenburg
This paper investigates trust among stakeholders in fisheries management. We asked the general public, environmental bureaucrats, and recreational and commercial fishers whether they believed various stakeholders have sufficient knowledge to take a stance regarding fisheries management issues in a choice experiment they themselves had just been exposed to. We found that the general public and recreational fishers tend to trust bureaucrats to have sufficient knowledge, while bureaucrats distrust the general public. The commercial fishers in our sample deviate from the other respondents with high self-trust and low trust in both the general public and bureaucrats. In addition, bureaucrats tend to think that their colleagues are more knowledgeable than them. When looking at observable characteristics, we find that, regardless of comparison group, males show higher trust in their own knowledge than do females, and those with higher education believe they are more knowledgeable than people in general.
Doing good with other people’s money: A charitable giving experiment with students in environmental sciences and economics
(2011-01) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Levati, M. Vittoria
We augment a standard dictator game to investigate how preferences for an environmental project relate to willingness to limit others’ choices. We explore this issue by distinguishing three student groups: economists, environmental economists, and environmental social scientists. We find that people are generally disposed to grant freedom of choice, but only within certain limits. In addition, our results are in line with the widely held belief that economists are more selfish than other people. Yet, against the notion of consumer sovereignty, economists are not less likely to restrict others’ choices and impose restrictions closer to their own preferences than the other student groups.
Food labels: how consumers value moral, environmental, and health aspects of meat consumption
(2020-04) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Nyberg, Erik; Sterner, Thomas; Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg
Policy changes could improve health and environmental outcomes by addressing the many externalities and internalities related to food consumption. Using a stated preference approach, we investigate to what extent consumers are willing to make costlier food consumption choices if doing so contributes to decrease environmental externalities, health damages, and animal suffering. We find a considerable willingness to pay for some aspects of the food bought. People are willing to pay an additional 50% for a product if it carries a label declaring that the product meets the highest available standards in terms of healthiness, animal welfare, and antibiotics use, respectively. The willingness to pay for a climate impact label is also sizeable but smaller. We compare a traffic-light label with a plain-text label and a grey-scale label in order to disentangle the effects of introducing labels Our results are mixed, suggesting that a traffic-light label has both normative and cognitive effects on behavior.
How are you? How's it going? What's up? What's happening? Nudging people to tell us how they really are
(2016-03) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Dept. of Economics, University of Gothenburg
We investigate a novel approach to reduce measurement error in subjective well-being (SWB) data. Using a between-subject design, half of the subjects are asked to promise to answer the survey questions truthfully in an attempt to make them commit to truth-telling. This allows us to experimentally test whether making a promise affects their responses. We find a statistically significant difference between mean stated well-being between the two groups (with and without a promise, although the effect sizes are rather small). We then investigate to what extent the differences in stated well-being also affect the inference from regressions models on the determinants of SWB. We find important differences in terms of size and statistical significance of the coefficients between the two models, despite the small effect sizes on the dependent stated well-being variable.
How long do you think it will take? Field Evidence on Gender Differences in Time Optimism
(2017-02) Kataria, Mitesh; Dept. of Economics, University of Gothenburg
Evidence from ten natural field studies comparing long-distance runners' incentivized predictions of race finishing time with their actual finishing time is reported. A modest but regular bias is found. Male runners are consistently found to be more time optimistic than female runners and finish slower than they predict to finish. Males are found to over-appreciate their physical fitness. To the extent this behaviour carries over to other contexts, such as the labor market, the tendency of men to overestimate their capacity could lead to distorted self-appraisals and give them advantages in terms of higher salaries and better positions.
How much does it take? Willingness to switch to meat substitutes
(University of Gothenburg, 2021-01) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Department of Economics
Meat production and consumption have several negative environmental externalities and health impacts. Using a stated preference survey, this study identifies main barriers to and drivers of switching to the following meat substitutes: a plant-based veggie burger, a meat-like burger, and a lab burger. We find that price matters: given the right monetary incentives, many individuals express a willingness to switch to meatless alternatives. About a third of those who prefer meat would consider switching to a meat substitute if the price were two-thirds or less of the price of the meat option. However, almost half of the respondents would not choose a lab meat burger even if they would get it for free. Male individuals without university education and older than 30 years show a stronger resistance to substitute meat hamburgers, in particular if the substitute is a plant-based veggie burger that neither looks nor tastes like meat. Environmental and health consciousness and being familiar with the substitute are correlated with the willingness to substitute. Older individuals are less familiar with and less likely to choose meat substitutes compared with younger individuals. We also find that taste is a prominent barrier for people who prefer meat, indicating that there is room for improvements in the taste of the different meat substitutes.
How Much Liberty Should We Have? Citizens versus Experts on Regulating Externalities and Internalities
(University of Gothenburg, 2024-01) Carlsson, Fredrik; Johansson-Stenman, Olof; Kataria, Mitesh; Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg
Based on a tailor-made survey, we find that experts – academics and civil servants – are much more willing than citizens in Sweden to accept liberty-reducing regulations. Moreover, both citizens and experts are more supportive of regulating negative internalities (in terms of health) than negative externalities (in terms of climate change). While less liberty-reducing policy instruments receive more support, around 20 percent of citizens and experts support very intrusive measures such as non-transferable individual quotas for air travel and unhealthy foods. Both experts and citizens prefer encouraging to discouraging information provision, while experts are more positive than citizens to tax instruments
Is Fairness Blind? - The effect of framing on preferences for effort-sharing rules
(2010-03-29T13:33:34Z) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Löfgren, Åsa; Sterner, Thomas
By using a choice experiment, this paper focuses on citizens’ preferences for effort-sharing rules of how carbon abatement should be shared among countries. We find that Swedes do not rank the rule favoring their own country highest. Instead, they prefer the rule where all countries are allowed to emit an equal amount per person, a rule that favors Africa at the expense of high emitters such as the U.S. The least preferred rule is reduction proportional to historical emissions. Using two different treatments, one where the respondents were informed about the country names and one where the country names were replaced with anonymous labels A-D, we also test whether people’s preferences for effort-sharing rules depend on the framing of the problem. We find that while the ranking of the principles is the same in both treatments, the strength of the preferences is significantly increased when the actual names of the countries are used.
Kostnader av elavbrott för svenska elkunder
(2019-03) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Martinsson, Peter; Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg
Leading by example? EU citizens’ preferences for climate leadership
(University of Gothenburg, 2022-10) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Löfgren, Åsa; Sterner, Thomas; Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg
For global problems like climate change, strong international agreements are difficult to achieve. Alternative solutions might therefore be necessary. In this paper, we study the support for climate leadership in seven European countries. Climate leadership means that an individual country takes the lead by decreasing its carbon emissions above its level of commitment in the current EU agreement and with the intention of inspiring other countries to do likewise. Overall, we find that at realistic cost levels, a majority of people oppose their country taking the lead, and most do not expect that taking the lead will result in other countries following suit. The lack of support is caused by expectations that such leadership will result in other countries behaving as free riders. We do, however, find evidence of preferences for conditional leadership: People are more positive about their country taking the lead if assured that other countries will follow. These preferences are stronger among those who identify as leftwing. Moreover, citizens in smaller countries are more pessimistic that other countries would follow their country’s lead and more sensitive to the response of other EU countries.
Past and present outage costs – A follow-up study of households’ willingness to pay to avoid power outages
(2019-10) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Martinsson, Peter; Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg
Households’ demand for electricity continues to increase. This trend per se should indicate increased disutility from power outages. On the other hand, batteries and other back-up systems have been improved and the frequency and duration of outages have been reduced in many countries. By comparing the results from two stated preference studies on Swedish households’ willingness to pay to avoid power outages in 2004 and 2017, we investigate whether the willingness to pay has changed. The willingness to pay is assessed for power outages of different durations, and whether it is planned or unplanned. We find three main differences: i) The proportion of households stating zero willingness to pay to avoid power outages decreased significantly from 2004 to 2017 and ii) the overall WTP was considerably higher in 2017 than in 2014, but iii) the WTP for duration of an outage has decreased. These results have implications for how regulators incentivize and regulate electricity suppliers since they suggest that a reliable supply of electricity is of greater importance now than what earlier studies have suggested.
Paying for Mitigation: A Multiple Country Study
(2010-05-17T09:21:57Z) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Krupnick, Alan; Lampi, Elina; Löfgren, Åsa; Qin, Ping; Chung, Susie; Sterner, Thomas
Unique survey data from a contingent valuation study conducted in three different countries (China, Sweden, and the United States) were used to investigate the ordinary citizen’s willingness to pay (WTP) for reducing CO2 emissions. We find that a large majority of the respondents in all three countries believe that the mean global temperature has increased over the last 100 years and that humans are responsible for the increase. A smaller share of Americans, however, believes these statements, when compared to the Chinese and Swedes. A larger share of Americans is also pessimistic and believes that nothing can be done to stop climate change. We also find that Sweden has the highest WTP for reductions of CO2, while China has the lowest. Thus, even though the Swedes and Chinese are similar to each other in their attitudes toward climate change, they differ considerably in their WTP. When WTP is measured as a share of household income, the willingness to pay is the same for Americans and Chinese, while again higher for the Swedes.
Sexual objectification of women in media and the gender wage gap: Does exposure to objectifying pictures lower the reservation wage?
(University of Gothenburg, 2022-08) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg
Using an online experiment, we investigate the influence of sexual objectification in media on economic decision making. In the experiment, subjects are asked to evaluate advertisements in women’s magazines. In the treatment groups, the ads portray women in sexually objectifying poses, while the poses are neutral in the control group. The main research hypothesis is that sexual objectification tends to make women self-objectify, i.e., they internalize the view of the objectifying images, and as a result, they lower their reservation wage. We find that women in the treatment groups do self-objectify: Women who were exposed to the objectifying images described themselves with words related to body shape or size significantly more often than women in the control group. Adding a warning text about the fact that photoshopped images can create unrealistic body ideals did not mitigate the self-objectification. However, we do not find any effect of the sexual objectification on women’s reservation wages. If we take the results at face value, they do suggest that the objectification of women in media, while having important psychological and emotional effects, does not seem to affect women’s economic behavior, at least not directly.
Sustainable food: can food labels make consumers switch to meat substitutes?
(2021-12) Carlsson, Fredrik; Kataria, Mitesh; Lampi, Elina; Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg
Using a stated preference survey, we investigate whether the introduction of a set of food labels affects consumers´ willingness to make costly shifts from meat products to meat substitutes. We investigate the role of food labels relating to health, use of antibiotics, climate impact, and animal care. We find that climate and healthiness labeling of substitutes increases the likelihood that consumers will switch to such products. We also find that labeling of the meat option can play an important role when choosing a food product. Labels concerning animal care, antibiotics use, and healthiness are all important for consumers’ choices, while a climate impact label placed on meat plays a smaller role. If meat is produced with severe restrictions on antibiotics use and the producers guarantee a high level of animal care, consumers will generally, all else equal, prefer the meat alternative. Twenty-five percent of the respondents are not willing to choose anything other than meat in the experiment. This subset of consumers are probably very difficult to influence. We find, however, that making a meat substitute taste more like meat is a key factor for those with limited experience of consuming soy products.