Hersch and Viscusi set out to examine how ones age is related to his/her support for environmental protection policies effecting the climate. This is accomplished through survey questions created to examine ones willingness to participate in a new environmental concern program that would increase gasoline prices as a way to curb consumption. From their data sample comprised of 14,000 respondents to a 1999 Eurobarometer survey, they discover that as age increases there is a decline in the number of people willing to incur higher gasoline prices as a way to protect the environment.
To examine peoples concern for environmental protection this article focuses on the support of gasoline price increases as a way to protect the environment, as consumption is closely related to problems with climate change. The procedure, by which this objective is carried out, involves asking individuals questions that reveal their willingness to participate in environmental protection programs, knowledge of environmental issues and their perception of the risks that stem from global warming. The last two questions help determine the source of any reluctance shown by any age group toward supporting environmental protection policy.
The authors gather their sample from a 1999 Eurobarometer survey of European citizens. The study was conducted using data from Europe because the European Union recently ratified a treaty seeking to reduce greenhouse gasoline emissions. The US did not. The authors felt that the study would be of more relevance conducted in an area that is more actively supporting environmental protection policy. The survey used provided a diverse sample, comprised of respondents from 15 countries and consisting of over 14,000 respondents. Information on demographic characteristics is also included, allowing the respondents to be divided into different age groups, in bands of 10 years (15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65+), and allowing for such things as sex, marital status, education, and income to be controlled for in the regression analysis.
When evaluating the first question concerning ones willingness to pay extra for gasoline as a way to protect the environment, only a minority of the total respondents indicated they would be willing to pay extra. However, of those who stated a willingness-to-pay there was a steady decline in the number of respondents as age increased. The mean amount of people willing-to-pay in all the age groups, excluding the oldest (15-64), were significantly higher than the amount found in the 65 and over age group. Hersch and Viscusi next examine the specific amount each age group would be willing to pay, with those respondents who said they would not be willing, receiving a zero value as the percentage more that they would pay. The survey offered three choices to those willing-to-pay: 10% more, 20% more, or 30% more. The complete data showed that, on average, those ages 15-24 were willing to pay 2.8% more, while those 65+ were only willing to pay 1% more. (The majority in every age group received a zero percent value, as they were not willing to pay extra) These findings indicate a clear trend in declining concern for the environment as age increases.
Does this indifference by the older generation derive from the fact that they have a short life expectancy or because they just aren’t as informed on environmental issues? Questions in the survey were set up to measure respondents’ informational bases concerning environmental issues and perceived personal threat from climate change. Regarding their informational bases, respondents were given, again, three choices: very well informed, fairly well informed, and fairly badly informed. Roughly half of every age grouped claimed to be very well informed. For the 65+ group 47% claimed to be very well informed, which wasn’t too different from the 54% average when all the younger groups were pooled together. So the problem isn’t that people are unaware of the issues, thus leading to the next question that addresses whether or not people see these problems as a risk to themselves specifically. Examining the differences in perceived risk amongst the different age groups shows that the 65+ group is the least concerned, but the difference is not substantial and not near as pronounced as the difference found in willingness-to-pay across the groups.
Hersch and Viscusi offer a possible explanation for the difference in willingness-to-pay across age groups, which is that there are age-related differences in access to environmental risk information. Younger people make many more sources of information available to them, like newspaper, academic reports, and environmental groups. This information was gained from the sample data as well, and the results showed statistically significant differences between the 65+ group and the rest concerning the usage of nine sources, which included such things as newspaper, magazines, television, and friends. The only source that was used more often by the older population was television. The authors make no attempt to give a definitive reason for the difference in willingness-to-pay across age groups, but they do offer up the notion that it its not solely a disinterested bequest motive with respect to future generations by older folks, but rather a relatively more intense eagerness by the younger generations, as they will benefit more from climate change policies.
This study was limited in that only asking one question relating to environmental protection policy, doesn’t fairly depict that person’s concern for the environment. It is hard to determine whether or not the results would have been more clear if say people were asked whether or not they would vote for stricter laws concerning car emissions rather than pay higher prices for gasoline. Then again you can’t have too open-ended of a question like would you support environmental protection, because the majority would probably say yes, when really they aren’t ready to back up their feelings with actions. Another factor that could be causing some environmental concern amongst respondents to go undetected in this study, is that fuel costs today are already very high. People may feel that no additional charge would cause people to cut back on usage more than they already are. Some of the people who believe this way may also feel strongly about environmental protection, but not necessarily agree that increased gas prices is the way to go about it. More research is needed with more questions involved in the survey that hit on different aspects of environmental protection, the results would give a better idea of what questions should be asked and a better understanding of peoples true desire to protect the environment.