2019 Second Quarter Journal Reviews
Measuring Willingness to Pay for Environmental Attributes in Seafood
Hilger, J., Hallstein, E., Stevens, A.W. et al. Environ Resource Econ (2019) 73: 307.
We found this article very interesting because of our recent work with CEI on growing farmed scallop in Maine. Most research suggests that consumers are willing to pay for environmental attributes (like sustainable harvest) in seafood, but the majority of that research are stated preference, rather than revealed preference, studies. In other words, they are studies of what consumers say they’re going to do, rather than studies of what consumers do. It is more difficult to design a controlled experiment that adequately captures consumers’ actual behavior than it is to design a survey! This article uses a “natural experiment” by which the researchers compared sales of seafood before and after a sustainability labeling scheme (using red, yellow, and green labels) was implemented. The researchers found that consumers did express preferences for wild-caught versus farmed seafood, US-caught versus no-US caught seafood, and selective harvest methods to less selective harvest methods. Another interesting aspect of this paper is the discussion of the yellow label, which was described as “proceed with caution” on the label but actually meant that not enough information was available to make a final decision. Consumers seem to have responded to this ambiguity by substituting away from this alternative altogether.
Do energy efficiency standards hurt consumers? Evidence from household appliance sales.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
Volume 96, July 2019, Pages 88-107
Arlan Brucala; Michael J.Roberts
In yet another article investigating policy and its effect on consumers, this article looks at Energy Star ™ labels on washers, dryers, and air conditioners, and the effect of those standards on prices and consumer behavior. Contrary to expectations, the authors find that stricter standards increase consumer welfare, by encouraging substitution towards more durable and energy-efficient goods.
Urban afforestation and infant health: Evidence from MillionTreesNYC
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
Volume 95, May 2019, Pages 26-44
This is a fascinating study of the effect of planting trees on infant health in urban areas. Whereas most of the literature on the positive effect of trees on health looks at the effect of proximity to green space on health, this article takes advantage of the MillionTreesNYC program in New York City to study the effect of planting trees on infant health. The authors use a database from the US Centers for Disease Control to compare the health of infants born to women in New York City to those born to women in similar areas where no afforestation occurred. They take advantage of several cutting-edge statistical methodologies to control for confounding factors, such as socio-demographic factors. Their findings imply that a twenty percent increase in in urban forest cover (such as occurred under the program) decreased prematurity and low birth weight among mothers in New York City by 2.1 and 0.24 percentage points, respectively, relative to similar mothers outside of NYC. While this doesn’t seem like much, the difference in low birth weight is equivalent to that of a mother who doesn’t smoke to a mother who smokes two cigarettes a day during pregnancy. The effect seemed to be greater among African American women, indicating that urban afforestation may be significant equity effects as well.