W ILLINGNESS TO S ACRIFICE FOR THE E NVIRONMENT

A substantial portion of literatures has focused on the theoretical analyses of altruistic motivation. However, empirical literature on the measurement of altruistic or self-sacrificing motivation is rarely seen. Diet, Stern and Guagnano (1998) once combined three items of the 1993 General Social Survey (GSS) (see Table 6-1) to form one behavioural indicator, known as

“willingness to sacrifice for environmental quality”, to conduct their analysis. However, the measurement and analysis on sacrificial willingness were not the purposes, and the respondents’

responses were not seen in that study.

Willingness to Pay (WTP) is a typical intention indicator used to measure people’s sacrificial willingness. However, WTP is mainly taken as an economic indicator and used to measure people’s willingness mostly in a monetary context. The analysis in this part focuses on people’s sacrificial willingness and tries to measure and analyse such sacrificial willingness from a somewhat comprehensive perspective that which involves money, life and even policy

contexts.

Table 6-1 Question items in of general social survey (1993)

Taking the work of Diet, Stern and Guagnano (1998) as a reference, we term the sacrificial willingness in this study as “willingness to sacrifice” (WTS) for the environment. Similar to the GSS (1993), the measurement of WTS in this study also includes three aspects (see Table 6-2), which involve people’s sacrificial willingness not only monetarily but also regarding life aspect.

However, there are also obvious differences between these two measurements.

Except the items design that our questions were dichotomously designed, the specific description and measurement of each aspect are also different. For the first aspect, the measurement in this study is more specific and specializes on buying expensive eco-goods, and hence it, can ensure that each respondent receives the same stimuli. For the second aspect, there is no obvious difference. Both of the measurements aim to investigate people’s sacrificial willingness regarding life aspect. For the third aspect, the GSS measurement still focuses on paying higher prices but on a more specific issue (taxes). While in this study, “the introduction

Item

Number Item Name Question Answer

8a The first aspect How willing would you be to pay much higher prices in order to protect the environment?

1. Very willing 2. Fairly willing 3. Neither willing nor unwilling

4. Not very willing 5. Not at all willing 8c^① The second aspect And how willing would

you be to accept cuts in your standard of living in order to protect the environment?

1. Very willing 2. Fairly willing 3. Neither willing nor unwilling

4. Not very willing 5. Not at all willing 8b The third aspect And how willing would

you be to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment?

1. Very willing 2. Fairly willing 3. Neither willing nor unwilling

4. Not very willing 5. Not at all willing Note: ① The order of the 8c item is exchanged with 8b.

of a new and additional tax” is emphasized. Although both the first and third aspects involve money payment, the emphasis in the first aspect in this study is on higher prices (more expensive), while tax introduction is emphasized in the third aspect. If the first aspect only focuses on the willingness to sacrifice money, the third aspect in this study also involves people’

s support to an environmental policy. From the above comparison, the measurement in this study is supposed to be more specific and more reasonable to realize the purpose in this study.

Despite some overlap, in this paper, we term these three aspects, respectively, as money-sacrifice willingness, life comfort-sacrifice willingness and tax-introduction willingness for the environment.

Table 6-2 WTS related question items in the survey

Item Name Question Code Answer

A-Second

Negative money-sacrifice willingness

B-First

Positive life comfort-sacrifice willingness

B-Second Negative life comfort-sacrifice willingness

C-First

Positive tax-payment willingness

C-Second

Negative tax-payment willingness A-First

Positive money-sacrifice willingness

If a product is good for the environment then we should try to purchase it even if it is a little more expensive.

There is no need to choose a product that is more eco-friendly if it is more expensive

Decline in material comfort to a certain extent is acceptable in order to protect the environment

I can't accept a lower standard of living even if it were for the protection of environment

A new, additional tax ought to be accepted in order to protect the environment

I oppose any introduction of a new tax even if it were for environmental protection

There are two contrasting views on a few issues related to environmental protection and improving the evironment. Please select one answer that comes closest to your thoughts.

WTS a.

Money-sacrifice willingness

There are two contrasting views on a few issues related to environmental protection and improving the environment. Please select one answer that comes closest to your thoughts.

b.

Life comfort-sacrifice willingness

There are two contrasting views on a few issues related to environmental protection and improving the environment. Please select one answer that comes closest to your thoughts.

c.

Tax-payment willingness

In the survey, we used three sub-questions to explore individuals’ sacrificial willingness for the environment from the aspects of money, daily life and tax introduction. The answers for each sub question were dichotomously designed. The first choices for each of the three sub questions, A-First, B-First and C-First, represent the positive WTS on money, daily life and tax introduction, while the second choices A-Second, B-Second and C-Second represent the negative WTS. The responses to the measurement of WTS in surveyed regions are shown in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3 Responses to WTS regarding money-sacrifice, life comfort-sacrifice and tax-introduction

From Table 6-3, the author found that the overall response to WTS in surveyed regions is somewhat positive. More than 60% of the respondents showed a positive response to all three aspects in surveyed areas, except the lower support for money-sacrifice in rural areas (49.7%).

Especially on the aspect of life comfort-sacrifice, people in surveyed regions showed a high support by the fact that 65% of the respondents in all three surveyed regions showed positive sacrifice willingness on this aspect. Compared to the sacrifice in life comfort and the introduction of a new tax, people in rural areas are more prudent with their money. Furthermore, by a comparison analysis, the author found that there are more positive responses to WTS on all three aspects in urban areas than in rural areas. In actuality, except on tax-introduction willingness

Rural Area

(%)51 villages Beijing p-value d-value Hangzhou p-value d-value

Positive money-sacrifice willingness 49.7 73.6 *** ** 60.9 *** *

Negative money-sacrifice willingness 50.3 26.4 *** ** 39.1 *** *

Positive life-sacrifice willingness 65.1 71.2 * ・ 73.1 ** *

Negative life-sacrifice willingness 34.9 28.8 * ・ 26.9 ** *

Positive tax-introduction willingness 63.7 66.8 79.2① *** *

Negative tax-introduction willingness 36.3 33.2 20.8 *** *

Urban Area

Money-sacrifice willingness Life comfort-sacrifice willingness Tax-introduction willingness

Note: 1. Statistical significance: ・p≤0.1,*p≤0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***≤0.001 2. Substantive significance : ・d≥0.1,*d≥0.2, **d≥ 0.5, ***≥0.8 3. The ratio of missing value in all cases is 26.9% (other, 0.9%; DK, 26%)

aspect, the percentages of positive responses on the other two aspects in urban areas are all significantly higher than in rural areas. Regarding the money-sacrifice aspect, 49.7% of the respondents in rural areas indicated that they are willing to do such sacrifice for the environment, while 73.6% of the respondents in Beijing and 60.9% in Hangzhou showed their positive sacrifice willingness. Regarding the life comfort-sacrifice aspect, 65.1% of the respondents in rural areas indicated that they are willing to do such sacrifice for the environment, while 71.2% of the respondents in Beijing and 73.1% in Hangzhou showed their positive sacrifice willingness.

Regarding the tax-introduction, 63.7% of the respondents in rural areas indicated that they are willing to do such sacrifice for the environment, while 66.8% of the respondents in Beijing and 79.2% in Hangzhou showed their positive sacrifice willingness.

From the above analysis, the author found that generally speaking, Chinese citizens showed a somewhat positive WTS on the whole. However, the WTS for environment is significantly different in rural and urban areas. People in urban areas are more inclined to do the sacrifice for the environment from their money, daily life comfort and even from a policy aspect.