Analysis of the Hungarian Population’s Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection Based on the ISSP and EVS Surveys
Abstract
We study the Hungarian population’s willingness to pay for the environment based on the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 1993 and 2020 and the European Values Survey (EVS) 1991-2017. The analysis explores the trend in willingness to pay and the individual-level variables associated with willingness to pay. The environmental willingness to pay has decreased over the period under study. Based on the ISSP 2020 and EVS 2017 datasets, we use a logistic regression method to investigate the factors associated with the willingness to pay. The EVS examines willingness to pay through one paying scenario, while the ISSP survey focuses on three scenarios. We examine the three domains separately and then transform them into a cumulative variable. The results of the regression models indicate both similarities and differences. Overall, environmental willingness to pay is ultimately a specific disposition embedded in economic development for which respondents are willing to sacrifice certain aspects of the environment. Higher levels of education and income, various forms of trust, post-materialist values, and environmental awareness further increase the willingness to pay and confirm our hypotheses. Climate awareness significantly increases some dimensions of willingness to pay, but the climate issue generally seems too distant to induce more costly decisions.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985): From intentions to action: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Kuhl, J. – Beckmann, J. (eds.): Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 11–39.
Ajzen, I. – Driver, B. L. (1992): Contingent value measurement: On the nature and meaning of willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4): 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80057-5
Andreoni, J. (1990): Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401): 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133
Bartus, T. (2003): Logisztikus regressziós eredmények értelmezése. Statisztikai Szemle, 81(4): 328–347. https://www.ksh.hu/statszemle_archive/2003/2003_04/2003_04_328.pdf
Bartus, T. – Kisfalusi, D. – Koltai, J. (2019): Logisztikus regressziós együtthatók összehasonlítása. Statisztikai Szemle, 97(3): 221–240. https://doi.org/10.20311/stat2019.3.hu0221
Baumgärtner, S. – Drupp, M. A. – Meya, J. N. – Munz, J. M. – Quaas, M. F. (2017): Income inequality and willingness to pay for public environmental goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 85: 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.04.005
Bodor, Á. – Varjú, V. – Grünhut, Z. (2020): The effect of trust on the various dimensions of climate change attitudes. Sustainability, 12: 10200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310200
CAF (Charities Aid Foundation) (2022): World Giving Index 2022. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-research/caf_world_giving_index_2022_210922-final.pdf
Carson, R. T. – Flores, N. E. – Meade, N. (2001): Contingent valuation. Controversies and evidence. Environmental & Resource Economics, 19(2): 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243
Cotta, B. – Memoli, V. (2020): Do environmental preferences in wealthy nations persist in times of crisis? The European environmental attitudes (2008–2017). Italian Political Science Review, 50:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2019.3
Davidovic, D. – Harring, N. (2020): Exploring the cross-national variation in public support for climate policies in Europe: the role of quality of government and trust. Energy Resource & Social Science, 70: 101785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101785
Diamond, P. A. – Hausman, J. A. (1994): Contingent Valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.45
Diekmann, A. – Preisendörfer, P. (2003): Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15(4), 441–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463103154002
Dienes, C. (2015): Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation. Environmental concern and the role of economic factors. Ecological Economics, 109: 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.012
EVS (2022a): European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017) – Sensitive Data. GESIS, Cologne. ZA7501 Data file Version 2.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13898
EVS (2022b): EVS Trend File 1981-2017. GESIS, Cologne. ZA7503 Data file Version 3.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14021
EVS–GESIS (2022): European Values Study (EVS) 2017 Method Report. GESIS Papers 07, GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Köln, GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7500, ZA7501 and ZA7502. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/79215
Franzen, A. – Meyer, R. (2010): Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26(2): 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp018
Franzen, A. – Vogl, D. (2012): Acquiescence and the willingness to pay for environmental protection. A comparison of the ISSP, WVS and EVS. Social Science Quarterly, 94(3): 637–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00903.x
Franzen, A. – Vogl, D. (2013): Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5): 1001–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.009
Haab, T. – Lewis, L. – Whitehead, J. (2020): State of the art of contingent valuation. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.450
Hanemann, M. (1994): Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.19
Hausman, J. (2012): Contingent Valuation: From dubious to hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4): 43–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/23290279
Hoerber, T. – Kurze, K. – Kuenzer, J. (2021): Towards ego-ecology? Populist environmental agendas and the sustainability transition in Europe. The International Spectator, 56(3): 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2021.1956718
Inglehart, R. (1995): Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science & Politics, 28(1): 57–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/420583
Israel, D. – Levinson, A. (2004): Willingness to pay for environmental quality: Testable empirical implications of the growth and environment literature. Contributions in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0645.1254
ISSP Research Group (2024): International Social Survey Programme: Environment I-IV Cumulation. GESIS, Cologne. ZA8793 Data file Version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14332
Ivanova, G. – Tranter, B. (2008): Paying for environmental protection in a cross-national perspective. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(2): 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140802035705
Jankó, F. – Bertalan, L. – Hoschek, M. – Komornoki, K. – Németh, N. – Papp-Vancsó, J. (2018): Perception, understanding, and action: attitudes of climate change in the Hungarian population. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 67(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.67.2.4
Kahneman, D. – Knetsch, J. L. (1992): Valuing public goods. The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(1): 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S
Kalistová, A. – Huttmanová, E. (2020): Attitudes to climate change from the perspective of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Individual & Society, 23(4): 32–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.31577/cas.2020.04.579
Kenny, J. (2018): Environmental protection preferences under strain: an analysis of the impact of changing individual perceptions of economic and financial conditions on environmental public opinion during economic crisis. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 28(1): 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2017.1395884
Kiss, E. – Balla, D. – Kovács, A. D. (2022): Characteristics of climate concern. Attitudes and personal actions. A case study of Hungarian settlements. Sustainability, 14, 5138. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095138
Kollmann, A. – Reichl, J. (2015): How trust in governments influences the acceptance of environmental taxes. In Schneider, F. – Kollmann, A. – Reichl, J. (eds.): Political Economy and Instruments of Environmental Politics. New York: MIT Press, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262029247.003.0004
Kotchen, M. J. – Reiling, S. D. (2000): Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics, 32(1): 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00069-5
Kulin, J. – Johansson Sevä, I. (2021): Quality of government and the relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: a cross-national study. Environmental Politics, 30(5): 727–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1809160
Lee, A.-R. – Norris, J. A. (2000): Attitudes towards environmental issues in East Europe. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12(4): 372–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/12.4.372
Liebe, U. – Preisendörfer, P. – Meyerhoff, J. (2011): To pay or not to pay: Competing theories to explain individuals’ willingness to pay for public environmental goods. Environment & Behavior, 43(1): 106–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509346229
Marbuah, G. (2019): Is willingness to contribute for environmental protection in Sweden affected by social capital? Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 21(3): 451–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-019-00238-6
Marjainé Szerényi, Zs. (2001): A természeti erőforrások pénzbeli értékelése. Közgazdasági Szemle, 48: 114–129. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:ksa:szemle:372
Marjainé Szerényi, Zs. – Csutora, M. – Harangozó, G. – Krajnyik, Zs. – Kontár, R. – Nagypál, N. (2005): A természetvédelemben alkalmazható közgazdasági értékelési módszerek. Budapest: A KvVM Természetvédelmi Hivatalának tanulmánykötete.
Marjainé Szerényi, Zs. – Kocsis, T. (2018): Gazdag szegények. Időráfordítási hajlandóság a környezeti javak értékelésében. Közgazdasági Szemle, 65: 1154–1171. https://doi.org/10.18414/KSZ.2018.11.1154
Meyer, R. – Liebe, U. (2010): Are the affluent prepared to pay for the planet? Explaining willingness to pay for public and quasi-private environmental goods in Switzerland. Population and Environment, 32(1): 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0116-y
Monostori, K. (2007): A feltételes értékelés módszertan jelentősége a környezettudatosság mérésénél. Marketing & Menedzsment, 6: 13–23. https://journals-test.lib.pte.hu/index.php/mm/article/view/1174
Muth, D. – Weiner, C. – Lakócai, C. (2024): Public support and willingness to pay for a carbon tax in Hungary: can revenue recycling make a difference? Energy, Sustainability and Society, 14(30). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-024-00463-2
Nawrotzki, R. J. (2012): The politics of environmental concern: A cross-national analysis. Organizations&Environment, 25(3): 286–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026612456535
Neumayer, E. (2004): The environment, left-wing political orientation and ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 51(3–4): 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.006
Nistor, L. (2013): Willingness to pay for climate friendly energy in Romania. A sociological approach. Sociologia – Slovak Sociological Review, 45 (6): 566–588. https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/01091248Nistor%20OK.pdf
Saari, U. A. – Damberg, S. – Frömbling, L. – Ringle, C. M. (2021): Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: the influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecological Economics, 189: 107155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107155
Schneider, M. – Medgyesi, M. (2020): Környezettel és környezetvédelemmel kapcsolatos lakossági attitűdök változása Magyarországon. In Kolosi, T. – Szelényi, I. – Tóth, I. Gy. (szerk.): Társadalmi Riport 2020. Budapest: Tárki, 500–521. https://doi.org/10.61501/TRIP.2020.22
Sjöstrand, S. (2024): Social and environmental protection: the effects of social insurance generosity of the acceptance of material sacrifices for the sake of environmental protection. Journal of Social Policy, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727942300065X
Streimikiene, D. – Balezentis, T. – Aisauskaite-Seskiene, I. – Stankuniene, G. – Simanaviciene, Z. (2019): A review of willingness to pay for climate change mitigation in the energy sector. Energies, 12: 1481. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12081481
Taniguchi, H. – Marshall, G. A. (2018): Trust, political orientation, and environmental behavior. Environmental Politics, 27(3), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1425275
Todor, A. (2018): Willing to pay to save the planet? Evaluating support for increased spending on sustainable development and environmentally friendly policies in five countries. PLOS One, 13(11): e0207862. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207862
Vicente, P. – Marques, C. – Reise, E. (2021): Willingness to pay for environmental quality: the effects of pro-environmental behaviour, perceived behaviour control, environmental activism and education level. Sage Open, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211025256
Weiner, Cs. – Muth, D. – Lakócai, Cs. (2023): A szén-dioxid-kibocsátást terhelő adó társadalmi elfogadottsága és a fizetési hajlandóság alakulása Magyarországon. Közgazdasági Szemle, 70: 1097–1107. https://doi.org/10.18414/KSZ.2023.10.1077
Whitehead, J. C. – Haab, T. C. (2013): Contingent valuation method. In Shogren, J. (ed.): Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource and Environmental Economics. London: Elsevier, 334–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375067-9.00004-8
Yettel (2023): Only 4 out of 10 Hungarians give to charity at Christmas, but who are the most popular beneficiaries? December 12. https://en.yettel.hu/press/press-release/only-4-out-of-10-hungarians-give-to-charity-at-christmas-but-who-are-the-most-popular-beneficiaries
