- Email: [email protected]
Willingness to pay for sustainable aviation depends on ticket price, greenhouse gas reductions and gender
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technology in Society journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
Willingness to pay for sustainable aviation depends on ticket price, greenhouse gas reductions and gender Connor Rice a, Nadine K. Ragbir b, *, Stephen Rice a, Gina Barcia b a b
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, College of Arts and Sciences, 600 South Clyde Morris Blvd, Daytona Beach, FL, 32114, USA Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy, 5625 Holy Trinity Dr, Melbourne, FL, 32940, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Aviation sustainability Green airports Greenhouse gases Gender Consumer opinions
Background: There has been a plethora of research into sustainable transportation, with quite a few research studies coming out in the past few years examining sustainable aviation. Much of this research focuses on developing new types of green products, including biofuels, eco-friendly airports, recycled building materials, water reuse projects, and other sustainable practices. Fewer studies have focused on consumer willingness to pay for new sustainable aviation projects. No study that we know of has examined how much extra consumers would be willing to pay as a function of the sustainability benefit. Methods: Across two studies, 1192 participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario about flying in a commercial airplane that was designed to provide a 10–50% reduction (in 10% increments) in greenhouse gases. Participants were then asked about their willingness to pay an additional 5%, 10% or 15% increase in ticket price for each of the reduction increments. Results: In general, more reductions in greenhouse gases increased willingness to pay the additional ticket price; however, this was limited in the 15% ticket price condition, particularly for long-haul flights. In addition, women were generally more willing to pay the additional ticket price compared to men; however, this was more pro nounced for shorter domestic flights compared to long-haul flights. Conclusions: Airlines can expect consumers to accept a small increase in ticket prices if they are convinced that the airplane flight emits fewer greenhouse gases. We discuss the implications of these findings.
1. Introduction The aviation industry is experiencing and will continue to experience rapid growth of passengers worldwide. It has been estimated that in as little as two decades, airline passengers will double; reaching 8.2 billion [1]. This rising demand will result in increased development of com mercial aircraft and airports, while consequently causing more pollu tion. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019), the global aviation industry is responsible for 2–3% of greenhouse emissions produced globally. The public has become progressively more aware of the impact greenhouse gases has on the environment and support the implementation of sustainable practices in industrial fields such as aviation. There have also been many studies that have concluded that people are willing to pay more for green initiatives within the aviation community [2,3]; Rice, & Rice, in press [4–6]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). However, to date, no study has investigated how much more individuals are willing to pay based on the percentage of
greenhouse emissions reduced. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the threshold passengers are willing to pay towards the reduction of greenhouse emissions from commercial aircraft. 1.1. Expansion of aviation and greenhouse emissions The International Air Transport Association (IATA) [1] forecasts the demand for air travel will reach 8.2 billion within the next two decades. Airlines and airports worldwide have been experiencing a rise in pas sengers, with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in particular, managing over 16,100,000 flights annually (FAA, 2019). To meet the demands of air travelers, the aviation industry must build more com mercial aircraft and possibly build larger airports to meet the plethora of individuals traveling daily. With increased production, it is guaranteed that pollution will also be on the rise drastically if this issue is not addressed. According to the EPA (2019), 2–3% of the world’s greenhouse
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.K. Ragbir). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101224 Received 13 October 2019; Received in revised form 8 November 2019; Accepted 4 December 2019 Available online 7 December 2019 0160-791X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
emissions is caused by the aviation industry. Aircraft alone can generate an alarming amount of planet-warming pollution and is estimated to produce around 43 gigatons of emissions by 2050 [7]. In addition, the magnitude of global fuel consumption needed to meet demands is esti mated to triple by 2050 [8]. Today, the average commercial airplanes (e. g., Boeing 747), burn through approximately 36,000 gallons of fuel during the course of a 9-10-h flight [9]. One of the largest greenhouse gases created by commercial airplanes is carbon dioxide or CO2 [7]. CO2 is known to be one the most damaging manmade pollutants to our environment [10] and commercial aircraft are said to produce about 53 pounds of CO2 per mile (Clayton, n.d.). While the staggering growth of greenhouse emissions continues to rise, businesses worldwide, including the aviation industry have acknowledged their role in the construction of climate-changing emis sions and are working steadily to combat this issue. The Paris Agreement can be considered one major approach nations took to accelerate the need for sustainable practices and push for environmentally supported regulations [11]. The aviation industry, in particular, is making strives to reduce the carbon footprint left behind by commercial aircraft. Ac cording to the FAA’s Strategic Plan (2019), adopting the use of alter native fuels, promoting sustainable practices, and manufacturing through reusability, are just a few of the ways the FAA plans to rectify this problem.
nuts and coconuts took place in 2008 [19]. Since then, over 150,000 flights globally have used SAFs and many airlines are starting to implement biofuels and biofuel blends within their corporation [20]. Currently, United Airlines uses biofuels in every-day operations and has reduced greenhouse emissions by 60% on a life-cycle basis [22]. Still, with the expansion of biofuels available in some airports, the use of these environmentally friendly products accounted for only 0.01% of the total fuel used in 2018 [20]. Other large industries globally have already incorporated sustain able practices within their system (e.g., agriculture, manufacturing) [23] and the aviation industry is approaching an era where they can meet the demand of humans without sacrificing the resources future generations will need [24]. Therefore, it is vital to consider the accel eration of sustainable practices in aviation, and more importantly, un derstand how consumers will play a role in the continued implementation and advancement of these practices. 1.2.2. Willingness to pay Several studies have investigated consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives and found that they are willing to pay more for the use of renewable resources [2,3,25]; Rice, & Rice, in press [4–6]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). A study conducted in 2018 indicated that consumers are willing to pay more for the construction of a green airport and were more emotionally positive about the green airports compared to a traditional one [6]. Similarly, a study conducted in Switzerland explored air travelers’ demand for green products in aviation and found that 20% of travelers are willing to pay for these additional airline services [25]. [3]; Rice, and Rice (in press) suggested that support for environ mentally friendly airports is possibly influenced by personal political affiliation, with Liberal participants favoring Democratic projects that support sustainable practices. Furthermore, an extensive study explored how the use of biofuels affects how much passengers are willing to pay [4]. The authors found that passengers are willing to pay up to 13% more for the use of biofuels and supported the use of biofuels to reduce carbon emissions. Interestingly, emotions or affect played a significant role in willingness to pay and the type of fuel used [4]. A more recent study developed four statistical models that would indicate consumer’s support eco-friendly products in aviation (Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). They found that the perceived value of sustainability was the most significant indication of willingness to pay for renewable resources (Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press).
1.2. Development of green initiatives in aviation 1.2.1. Green airports and other sustainable practices The aviation industry is starting to take steps to reduce planetwarming effects by developing eco-friendly airports and fostering alternative fuel resources. The adoption of environmentally friendly airport design aspects was directed by the USA Green Building Council who later established a rating system called the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) [12]. LEED acknowledges sustainable practices, reusability, and energy-efficient tactics during the construc tion or manufacturing of businesses, homes, and even airports (LEED, n. d.). In fact, the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport in Tennessee was the first airport terminal in the world to receive a LEED Platinum Certifi cation (Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, n.d.). Some efforts that were recognized for this award was the use of bamboo on ceilings which is considered a rapidly renewable resource, recycled carpet and tile, and 95% of construction waste recycled (Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, n.d.). Many airports globally have also implemented sustainable practices within the construction or redesign process and have progressively aimed to meet real-world solutions. Some of the busiest and eco-friendly airports include Indira Gandhi Airport in India, which comprises of 300 rainwater capturing stations and the ability to save 70% of water supply [13]. These techniques have also been implemented in developing countries and have shown to be a successful sustainable practice [14]. Boston Logan International Airport in Massachusetts recently repaved eco-friendly asphalt on runways that reduced around 2000 tons of emissions during the course of its construction [15]. Furthermore, Changi Airport in Singapore is especially known for its design sur rounding nature with a collection of over 20,000 plant species and nearing 2500 trees [16]. With this vast array of plants, the airport continues to improve the quality of the air for passengers and workers while decreasing the airport’s temperature [16]. Another viable solution to reduce aviation’s carbon footprint is the use of alternative fuels. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) can be described as an incorporation of various biofuels created from plant-based prod ucts and can be considered a carbon-neutral fuel [17]. Biofuels are a promising alternative to petroleum fuels (i.e., fuel used in commercial aircrafts today) because of the ability to reduce greenhouse gases [18]. In the United States (U.S.), some SAFs that are permitted derived from oils, fats, agricultural wastes, and energy wastes (FAA, 2016). The first flight using a blend of biofuels made from Brazilian babassu
1.3. Possible influences of willingness to pay With the public gradually becoming more aware of the impact commercial aviation has on the environment, it is important to consider passengers’ perceptions and individual characteristics regarding the use of sustainable practices. There have been many studies that have examined consumer perceptions of the use of green products and found that affect or emotions, perceived value, and gender could potentially play a role [4–6,26]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). Research on emotions and decision-making is well-established and illustrate that emotions do, in fact, influence judgment and decision making [6,26–29]. Wright and Bower [29] concluded that participants who expressed optimism were more positive about future events than participants who reported being in a bad mood. Another study found that affect played a significant role in decision-making and willingness to pay for green airports [6]. When compared to the six universal emotions, the authors highlighted that participants felt anger and disgust for paying for a new airport that was not environmentally friendly. Furthermore, a more recent study validating a predictive model on a passenger’s willingness to fly on an autonomous commercial aircraft found that out of seven predictors, happiness was one of the most sig nificant [26]. Moreover, a notable study that explored which factors 2
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
would predict consumer support for sustainability in aviation found that consumer’s perceived value was significant across all the models and affect was significant in 75% of the models (Thropp and Rice (in press). Thus, emotions are almost always prevalent when making decisions [4] and it is important to understand passenger’s perceptions on green products to better understand how to increase the use of these products worldwide. Differences between genders have been seen in decision-making and risk-taking [30–32]. Research supports that in general, males are more likely to take risks than females [31]. A meta-analysis on gender dif ferences in risk-taking found that overall, females’ assessment of risk is greater while males are more likely to take less time accessing risks [30]. Several studies have also investigated differences between gender and behavior toward green products [4,33–36]. Many suggest that one difficulty with combating climate change is the separation of re sponsibility accounted for by both genders. In other words, research indicates that women are more likely to display more environmentally friendly attitudes and behavior than men [33,34]. In addition, men are more likely to litter and not participate in recycling techniques [37] and are less likely to use green products such as reusable water bottles [36]. Some studies seek to identify why this gap exists in eco-friendly development and implementation. Dietz, Kalof, and Stern [38] exam ined the relationship between values, traditionalism, and openness to change to identify how these factors contribute to gender differences in environmentalism. The authors found that women have demonstrated more concern for the environment, society, and tend to be more pro social. This could be due to an increased value for the future due to their nurturing nature [39]. Furthermore, research on differences between gender and green products have illustrated a possible stereotype associated with green products and femininity [33,40]. More fundamentally, green marketing has targeted specific consumers in family health, food industries, and cleaning which has been considered a female work field [33]. Although gender differences exist in many areas, some prior research on gender differences in sustainable practices in aviation has shown no significant differences [4]. Similarly, a more recent study on gender differences and willingness to pay more for the use of biofuels indicated no significant gender differences as well (Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). While the research on gender and sustainable practices in aviation is unexplored and mixed, this is promising news that the use of sustainable practices in aviation may not vary widely based on gender.
3. Study 1 – method Participants. Five hundred and eighty-three (312 females) people took part in the study. They were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, which is a site that provides online intelligence tasks for monetary compensation. This data has been found to be as reliable as laboratory data [41,42]; Rice, Winter, Doherty & Milner, 2016). Materials and Procedure. Participants were first presented with an electronic consent form followed by instructions for the task. They were then given the following hypothetical scenario: Imagine that you are on a commercial airplane flight from one domestic city to another for a holiday. This particular airplane uses a combination of biofuels and electric motors in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve its sustainability. The normal price for this ticket is $300 (three hundred) without flying on a sustainable airplane. In this case, the ticket price will increase by 5%. Based on that information, please answer the following questions. In other condi tions, the ticket price increase was 10% or 15%. In addition to this scenario, participants were presented with five different possible reductions in greenhouse gases, from 10% to 50% in 10% increments. After each of these possible scenarios, participants responded to a 7-point Likert-Type scale from “extremely unwilling to pay for this ticket” to “extremely willing to pay for this ticket”, with a neutral zero option (See Appendix A). Participants then filled out de mographics questions, were paid and dismissed. Design. The study used a mixed design with ticket price increase as a between-participants factor. This was operationally defined as whether participants would have to pay an additional 5%, 10% or 15% fee on top of the regular ticket price. The amount of greenhouse gas reduction was a within-participants factor. This was operationally defined as how much greenhouse gases would be reduced in 10% increment from 10% to 50%. Gender was included in the analyses as a between-participants factor. 4. Study 1 – results The data from Study 1 are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. A three-way analysis of variance using Gender and Ticket Price as the betweenparticipants factors, and Reduction as the within-participants factor found significant main effects of Gender, F(1, 577) ¼ 6.49, p ¼ .01, partial eta squared ¼ 0.01, Ticket Price, F(2, 577) ¼ 6.81, p ¼ .001, partial eta squared ¼ 0.02, and Reduction, F(4, 2308) ¼ 210.70, p < .001, partial eta squared ¼ 0.27. These main effects were qualified by a significant interaction between Gender and Reduction, F(4, 2308) ¼ 3.52, p ¼ .007, partial eta squared ¼ 0.01, indicating that as the amount of greenhouse gas is reduced, females are more willing to pay for that extra reduction compared to males. There were no other significant interactions in the data.
2. Current study While there has been quite a bit of research into sustainable trans portation, with some focus on sustainable aviation, no study that we know of has focused on how airplane ticket price increase interacts with reductions in greenhouse gases emitted by commercial aircraft. Across two studies, we presented participants with hypothetical scenarios about flying in a commercial airplane that was designed to reduce greenhouse gases by 10–50% in 10% increments. Participants were asked how willing they would be to pay an additional 5%, 10%, or 15% ticket price. In Study 1, we focused solely on short-haul domestic flights, while in Study 2, we focused on long-haul international flights. We hypothesized the following: Ha1: In general, willingness to pay the additional ticket price would increase as the amount of greenhouse gases were reduced. Ha2: There would be a cutoff in willingness to pay; that is, partici pants would not be willing to pay certain ticket price increases unless there was a specific reduction in greenhouse gases. Ha3: Willingness to pay the additional ticket price would be lower for more expensive, long-haul flights. Ha4: There would be gender differences in willingness to pay. This was a non-directional hypothesis based on the mixed findings in the literature.
5. Study 1 – discussion The data from Study 1 are straightforward. Participants became more willing to pay the additional ticket price if they were assured that the amount of greenhouse gases would be reduced. This appeared to be a monotonic effect across all three ticket price increase manipulations. The amount of ticket price increase also affected participants’ willing ness to pay the additional fee. This is not surprising, as consumers typically are not happy about paying too much extra for benefits they think should already be included in the price. In general, women were more willing to pay the additional ticket price compared to men, which supports much of the literature on this topic [4,33–36]. However, this is qualified by an interaction between gender and the amount of green house gas reduction; that is, the differences between males and females increased as the amount of greenhouse gas was reduced.
3
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
Fig. 1. Female data from Study 1 as a function of ticket price increase and greenhouse gas reduction. Standard error bars are included.
Fig. 2. Male data from Study 1 as a function of ticket price increase and greenhouse gas reduction. Standard error bars are included.
6. Study 2 – introduction
7. Study 2 – methods
The purpose of Study 2 was to replicate the findings from Study 1 using a scenario that involved a long-haul flight with a more expensive ticket. In Study 1, participants were presented with a base ticket price of $300 (domestic flight), while this was increased to $1000 (international flight) in Study 2. Our predictions remained the same as they were in Study 1.
Participants. Six hundred and nine (336 females) people took part in the study. As with Study 1, they were recruited from Amazon’s Me chanical Turk. Materials and Procedure. Study 2 was identical to Study 1 with one exception. The flight was described as a long-haul international flight and the original ticket price was increased to $1000.
4
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
an airport that was not environmentally friendly. Furthermore, Hinnen, Hille, and Wittmer [25] explored 811 individual’s willingness to pay for green products in air travel (e.g., reduced carbon emissions, organic food). They found that the majority of participants were willing to pay more for an airplane that had a reduction of greenhouse gases and offered organic food on-board. Although organic food on-board a flight is not being measured, it specifies that the public is moving into more sustainable practices in large areas such as food service agriculture as well [23]. Additionally, one study explored how the use of biofuels af fects how much passengers are willing to pay [4]. The authors indicated that passengers are willing to pay more for the use of biofuels and supported the use of biofuels to reduce carbon emissions. Perhaps, an individuals’ contribution towards environmentally-friendly products makes them feel a part of a larger global movement towards sustainable practices and in turn, makes them feel positive about the impact they will make for future generations. The second hypothesis stated that there would be a cutoff in will ingness to pay; that is, participants would not be willing to pay certain ticket price increases unless there was a significant reduction in green house gases. The results of the study supported this hypothesis. For example, in Study 1, participants in the 10% ticket increase condition were not willing to pay the additional fee unless they were assured of at least 30% reduction in greenhouse gases. In the 15% ticket increase condition, they were only willing to pay extra if they saw a 40% reduction. In Study 2, the cutoffs were higher as the base price of the ticket increased from $300 to $1000. Now participants demanded a reduction of 40% before they were willing to pay that additional 10% fee. This went up to a demand of 50% reduction before they were willing to pay the additional 15% fee. One recent study investigated whether or not consumers would be willing to pay more to fly on an aircraft that uses biofuels as opposed to an aircraft that uses traditional jet fuel [4]. The authors found that participants were willing to pay more for the use of biofuels in com mercial aircraft. More importantly, the authors highlight that consumers are willing to pay 13% extra for the use of biofuels and generally felt that using biofuels is more sustainable [4]. Based on prior literature [4] and the results from this current study, it appears that the public standards are a high reduction in greenhouse gases in order to pay additional prices. Ideally, passengers’ may want to know that they contributed to a
8. Study 2 – results The data from Study 2 are presented in Figs. 3 and 4. A three-way analysis of variance using Gender and Ticket Price as the betweenparticipants factors, and Reduction as the within-participants factor found significant main effects of Ticket Price, F(2, 603) ¼ 5.58, p ¼ .004, partial eta squared ¼ 0.02, and Reduction, F(4, 2412) ¼ 261.68, p < .001, partial eta squared ¼ 0.30. There were no significant interactions in the data. 9. Study 2 – discussion The findings from Study 2 replicated those from Study 1 except for the gender differences. Once again, participants were more willing to pay an additional ticket price as the amount of greenhouse gas emissions were decreased. They were also less willing to pay as the ticket price increase moved from 5% to 10%–15%. Contrary to the findings in Study 1, gender did not show up as a significant variable. We discuss the im plications of these findings in more detail in the general discussion. 10. General discussion Many studies that have concluded that people are willing to pay more for green initiatives within the aviation community [2,3]; Rice, & Rice, in press [4–6]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). However, to date, no study has investigated how much more individuals are willing to pay based on the percentage of greenhouse emissions reduced. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the threshold passengers are willing to pay towards the reduction of greenhouse emissions from commercial aircraft. The first hypothesis stated that in general, willingness to pay the additional ticket price would increase as the amount of greenhouse gases were reduced. The results of the study supported this hypothesis, in that, as greenhouse gases were reduced individuals were willing to pay more for the ticket price. These results represent the public’s support for green initiatives within the aviation community. Walters et al. [6], examined if consumers would be willing to pay more for a green airport as compared to a traditional airport. The authors found that participants were willing to pay for a sustainable airport and felt anger and disgust for paying for
Fig. 3. Female data from Study 2 as a function of ticket price increase and greenhouse gas reduction. Standard error bars are included. 5
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
Fig. 4. Male data from Study 2 as a function of ticket price increase and greenhouse gas reduction. Standard error bars are included.
gender differences in sustainable practices in aviation has shown no significant differences [4]. A more recent study on gender differences and willingness to pay more for the use of biofuels indicated no significant gender differences (Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). While the research on gender and sustainable practices in aviation is mixed, the results of the study suggest that the public is willing to pay more for the incorporation of sustainability within the aviation industry.
large reduction of greenhouse emissions and will only be willing to participate if they believe the amount of reduction of emissions will impact the near future. In reference to research in consumer psychology, individuals’ may just want to know they are getting the most out of the money they spend and invest. The third hypothesis stated that willingness to pay the additional ticket price would be lower for more expensive, long-haul flights. The results of the study supported this hypothesis showing that participants were less willing to pay for long-haul international flights. This was likely due to participants calculating how much extra cash they would have to pay. In the $300 domestic flight condition, an additional 10% fee resulted in an increase of $30. This changed to an increase of $100 for the $1000 international flight condition. One possibility for this outcome could be due to the fact that passengers’ may not be able to afford an additional $100; considering the long-haul distance is solely for international flights without taking into consideration of the other expenses associated with international travel. Future research should examine various ticket price increases as a function of shorter or longer haul flights. The fourth hypothesis stated that there would be gender differences in willingness to pay. The results of Study 1 supported this hypothesis, illustrating that there were significant differences between males and females in willingness to pay. Past research has demonstrated that fe males are more concerned with the environment and how wars among countries influence future generations [43]. Similarly, Dietz, Kalof, and Stern [38] examined the relationship between values, traditionalism, and openness to change to identify how these factors contribute to gender differences in environmentalism. The authors found that women have demonstrated more concern for the environment, society, and tend to be more prosocial. This could be due to an increased value for the future due to their nurturing nature [39]. Other studies have found that men are more likely to litter and not participate in recycling techniques [37] and are less likely to use green products such as reusable water bottles [36]. While gender differences are apparent in a variety of behaviors and perceptions, it is important to consider approaches taken to address these concerns to the population. Similar to how information is presented to individuals’ based on age, it might as well be beneficial to alter marketing strategies to include gender-neutral ideas to increase green participation. Although gender differences exist in many areas, some prior research on
11. Practical applications Airlines and aircraft manufacturers can use the results of this study to better understand the consumer, who ultimately determines the success of sustainable practices. Airline executives and marketing teams can use this data to set prices and develop marketing campaigns. Furthermore, these marketing campaigns can also guide the green movement to target not only females but males as well. This can help reduce and hopefully eliminate the idea that sustainability is a feminine movement and incorporate all who want to participate in reducing their carbon foot print. Public support for sustainable initiatives offers an incentive for more airlines to transition from conventional fuel to biofuels. As dependence on fossil fuels continues to deplete the earth of its natural resources (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] [17], biofuels offer an alternative that reduces, if not eliminates, the carbon emissions resulting from conventional jet fuel. 12. Limitations Similar to all studies, the current study has some existing limitations that need to be discussed. First, although there have been studies authenticating the use of MTurk as a reliable means of collecting data [41,42], the convenience sample used here may inhibit the generaliz ability of the data to the overall population [44]. It is important to conduct future research that will replicate these findings and provide a more precise assessment of effect sizes (Mehta et al., in press). Second, the use of hypothetical scenarios, while mandatory for this type of research due to the impossibility of collecting behavioral data, requires that we be cautious about making grand conclusions from this data. Future studies should replicate these findings to increase the validity of the study. 6
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
13. Conclusions
[15] J. Baker, The world’s most environmentally friendly airports, Retrieved from, http s://www.airport-technology.com/features/worlds-environmentally-friendlyairports/, 2018. [16] J. Green, Singapore’s new garden airport, Retrieved from, https://dirt.asla.org/20 19/04/08/singapores-new-garden-airport/, 2019. [17] National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Biofuels as an alternative energy source for aviation—a survey (Report No. 2009-215587), Retrieved from, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100002886.pdf, 2009. [18] N. Yilmaz, A. Atmanli, Sustainable alternative fuels in aviation, Energy 140 (2017) 1378–1386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.077. [19] BBC News, UK | airline in first biofuel flight, Retrieved from, http://news.bbc.co. uk/2/hi/uk/7261214.stm, 2008, February 24. [20] P. Le Feuvre, Are aviation biofuels ready for take off?, Retrieved from, https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/march/are-aviation-biofuels-read y-for-take-off.html, 2019. [22] United Airlines, Sustainable Fuel Sources, 2018. Retrieved from, https://www.uni ted.com/ual/en/us/fly/company/globalcitizenship/environment/sustainable-fuel -sources.html. [23] A.A. Adenle, K. Wedig, H. Azadi, Sustainable agriculture and food security in africa: the role of innovative technologies and international organizations, Technol. Soc. 58 (2019) 101143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.05.007. [24] A.F. Appleton, Sustainability: a practitioner’s reflection, Technol. Soc. 28 (1) (2006) 3–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.001. [25] G. Hinnen, S.L. Hille, A. Wittmer, Willingness to pay for green products in air travel: ready for take-off? Willingness to pay for green products in air travel, Bus. Strateg. Environ. 26 (2) (2017) 197–208, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1909. [26] S. Rice, S.R. Winter, R. Mehta, N.K. Ragbir, What factors predict the type of person who is willing to fly in an autonomous commercial airplane? J. Air Transp. Manag. 75 (2019) 131–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.12.008. [27] J.M. George, E. Dane, Affect, emotion, and decision making, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 136 (2016) 47–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.004. [28] G. Loewenstein, J.S. Lerner, The role of affect in decision making, Handbook of affective science 619 (642) (2003) 3. [29] W.F. Wright, G.H. Bower, Mood effects on subjective probability assessment, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 52 (2) (1992) 276–291. [30] J.P. Byrnes, D.C. Miller, W.D. Schafer, Gender differences in risk taking: a metaanalysis, Psychol. Bull. 125 (3) (1999) 367–383, https://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.125.3.367. [31] C.C. Eckel, P.J. Grossman, Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence, Handbook of experimental economics results 1 (2008) 1061–1073. [32] G. Charness, U. Gneezy, Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 83 (1) (2012) 50–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jebo.2011.06.007. [33] A.R. Brough, J.E.B. Wilkie, J. Ma, M.S. Isaac, D. Gal, Is eco-friendly unmanly? the green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption, J. Consum. Res. 43 (4) (2016) 567–582, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044. [34] D.J. Davidson, W.R. Freudenburg, Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research, Environ. Behav. 28 (3) (1996) 302–339. [35] S.P. Cottrell, Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters, Environ. Behav. 35 (3) (2003) 347–375. [36] R. R€ aty, A. Carlsson-Kanyama, Energy consumption by gender in some european countries, Energy Policy 38 (1) (2010) 646–649, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2009.08.010. [37] C.A. Kallgren, R.R. Reno, R.B. Cialdini, A focus theory of normative conduct: when norms do and do not affect behavior, Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 (8) (2000) 1002–1012, https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610009. [38] T. Dietz, L. Kalof, P.C. Stern, Gender, values, and environmentalism, Soc. Sci. Q. 83 (1) (2002) 353–364, https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00088. [39] L.C. Zelezny, P. Chua, C. Aldrich, New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism, J. Soc. Issues 56 (3) (2000) 443–457, doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00177. [40] J. Bj€ ork, Mainstream green: moving sustainability from niche to normal, Retrieved from, http://www.goodlifer.com/2011/04/mainstream-green-moving-sustainabi lity-from-niche-to-normal/, 2013, February 11. [41] M. Buhrmester, T. Kwang, S.D. Gosling, Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6 (3) (2011) 3–5. [42] L. Germine, K. Nakayama, B.C. Duchaine, C.F. Chabris, G. Chatterjee, J.B. Wilmer, Is the web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19 (5) (2012) 847–857. [43] L. Huddy, S. Feldman, E. Cassese, Terrorism, Anxiety, and War. Terrorism and Torture: an Interdisciplinary Perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009. [44] S. Rice, S.R. Winter, S. Doherty, M.N. Milner, Advantages and disadvantages of using internet-based survey methods in aviation-related research, J. Aviation Technol and Eng. 7 (1) (2017) 58–65. [45] I. Cremer, S. Rice, S. Winter, Attitudes toward sustainability between Indians and Americans on water reuse for different purposes at airports, International Journal of Sustainable Aviation 1 (3) (2015) 234–244, https://doi.org/10.1504/ IJSA.2015.070371.
The purpose of this study was to examine some possible variables that affect consumer willingness to pay an additional ticket price in crease for flights that reduce the amount of greenhouse emissions. Prior studies have concluded that people are willing to pay more for green initiatives within the aviation community [2,3,45]; Rice, & Rice, in press [4–6]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). The current study adds to this literature by showing that more reductions in greenhouse gases increase willingness to pay an additional ticket price. This was somewhat limited in the 15% ticket price increase condition, particularly for long-haul flights. In addition, women were generally more willing to pay the additional ticket price compared to men; however, this was more pro nounced for shorter domestic flights compared to long-haul flights. Appendix A. Scale used to measure participant responses Extremely unwilling to pay for this ticket ( 3) Quite unwilling to pay for this ticket ( 2) Slightly unwilling to pay for this ticket ( 1) Neutral (0) Slightly willing to pay for this ticket (þ1) Quite willing to pay for this ticket (þ2) Extremely willing to pay for this ticket (þ3) References [1] The International Air Transport Association (IATA), ATA Forecast Predicts 8.2 Billion Air Travelers in 2037, 2018 (Press Release No.: 62). Retrieved from, https ://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-10-24-02.aspx. [2] I. Cremer, S. Rice, Which emotions mediate the relationship between type of water recycling projects and likelihood of using green airports? International Journal of Sustainable Aviation 1 (4) (2015) https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSA.2015.074725. [3] M. Milner, S. Rice, C. Rice, Support for environmentally-friendly airports influenced by political affiliation and social identity, Technol. Soc. 59 (2019) 101185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101185. [4] T. Rains, S.R. Winter, S. Rice, M. Milner, Z. Bledsaw, E. Anania, Biofuel and commercial aviation: will consumer pay more for it? International Journal of Sustainable Aviation 3 (3) (2017) 217–232, https://doi.org/10.1504/ IJSA.2017.086846. [5] S. Rice, The Public Supports Sustainable Aviation and They Are Willing Pay for it. Forbes, 2019, June. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenrice1/2019/06/05/th e-public-supports-sustainable-aviation-and-they-are-willing-pay-for-it/#1a1 787ab7282. [6] N.W. Walters, S. Rice, S.R. Winter, B.S. Baugh, N.K. Ragbir, E.C. Anania, J. Capps, M.N. Milner, Consumer willingness to pay for new airports that use renewable resources, The International Journal of Sustainable Aviation 4 (2) (2018) 79–98, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSA.2018.094227. [7] Center for Biological Diversity, Up in the air: how airplane carbon pollution jeopardizes global climate goals, Retrieved from, https://www.biologicaldiversity. org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplan e_emissions/pdfs/Airplane_Pollution_Report_December2015.pdf, 2015. [8] A.A. Gialos, V. Zeimpekis, N.D. Alexopoulos, N. Kashaev, S. Riekehr, A. Karanika, Investigating the impact of sustainability in the production of aeronautical subscale components, J. Clean. Prod. 176 (2018) 785–799, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.12.151. [9] W. Roberson, Fuel Conservation Strategies: Takeoff and Climb, 2014. Retrieved from, https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_08/art icle_05_1.html. [10] International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions statistics: an essential tool for analysts and policy makers, Retrieved from, https://www.iea.org/statistics/co2emissions/, 2019. [11] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Paris Agreement, 2015. Retrieved from, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agree ment.pdf. [12] J. Ahn, Development of Energy Performance Metrics for Airport Terminal Buildings Using Multivariate Regression Modelling, 2016. Doctoral dissertation, Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and thesis Global, Order No. 10583302. [13] N. Prasad, Delhi’s Igi Airport Saves 70% Water by Using New EnvironmentFriendly Techniques; Details Here, 2019. Retrieved from, https://www.financiale xpress.com/infrastructure/airlines-aviation/delhis-igi-airport-saves-70-water-byusing-new-environment-friendly-techniques-details-here/1514706/. [14] S. Esposto, The sustainability of applied technologies for water supply in developing countries, Technol. Soc. 31 (3) (2009) 257–262, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.06.009.
7
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technology in Society journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
Willingness to pay for sustainable aviation depends on ticket price, greenhouse gas reductions and gender Connor Rice a, Nadine K. Ragbir b, *, Stephen Rice a, Gina Barcia b a b
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, College of Arts and Sciences, 600 South Clyde Morris Blvd, Daytona Beach, FL, 32114, USA Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy, 5625 Holy Trinity Dr, Melbourne, FL, 32940, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Aviation sustainability Green airports Greenhouse gases Gender Consumer opinions
Background: There has been a plethora of research into sustainable transportation, with quite a few research studies coming out in the past few years examining sustainable aviation. Much of this research focuses on developing new types of green products, including biofuels, eco-friendly airports, recycled building materials, water reuse projects, and other sustainable practices. Fewer studies have focused on consumer willingness to pay for new sustainable aviation projects. No study that we know of has examined how much extra consumers would be willing to pay as a function of the sustainability benefit. Methods: Across two studies, 1192 participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario about flying in a commercial airplane that was designed to provide a 10–50% reduction (in 10% increments) in greenhouse gases. Participants were then asked about their willingness to pay an additional 5%, 10% or 15% increase in ticket price for each of the reduction increments. Results: In general, more reductions in greenhouse gases increased willingness to pay the additional ticket price; however, this was limited in the 15% ticket price condition, particularly for long-haul flights. In addition, women were generally more willing to pay the additional ticket price compared to men; however, this was more pro nounced for shorter domestic flights compared to long-haul flights. Conclusions: Airlines can expect consumers to accept a small increase in ticket prices if they are convinced that the airplane flight emits fewer greenhouse gases. We discuss the implications of these findings.
1. Introduction The aviation industry is experiencing and will continue to experience rapid growth of passengers worldwide. It has been estimated that in as little as two decades, airline passengers will double; reaching 8.2 billion [1]. This rising demand will result in increased development of com mercial aircraft and airports, while consequently causing more pollu tion. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019), the global aviation industry is responsible for 2–3% of greenhouse emissions produced globally. The public has become progressively more aware of the impact greenhouse gases has on the environment and support the implementation of sustainable practices in industrial fields such as aviation. There have also been many studies that have concluded that people are willing to pay more for green initiatives within the aviation community [2,3]; Rice, & Rice, in press [4–6]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). However, to date, no study has investigated how much more individuals are willing to pay based on the percentage of
greenhouse emissions reduced. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the threshold passengers are willing to pay towards the reduction of greenhouse emissions from commercial aircraft. 1.1. Expansion of aviation and greenhouse emissions The International Air Transport Association (IATA) [1] forecasts the demand for air travel will reach 8.2 billion within the next two decades. Airlines and airports worldwide have been experiencing a rise in pas sengers, with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in particular, managing over 16,100,000 flights annually (FAA, 2019). To meet the demands of air travelers, the aviation industry must build more com mercial aircraft and possibly build larger airports to meet the plethora of individuals traveling daily. With increased production, it is guaranteed that pollution will also be on the rise drastically if this issue is not addressed. According to the EPA (2019), 2–3% of the world’s greenhouse
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.K. Ragbir). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101224 Received 13 October 2019; Received in revised form 8 November 2019; Accepted 4 December 2019 Available online 7 December 2019 0160-791X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
emissions is caused by the aviation industry. Aircraft alone can generate an alarming amount of planet-warming pollution and is estimated to produce around 43 gigatons of emissions by 2050 [7]. In addition, the magnitude of global fuel consumption needed to meet demands is esti mated to triple by 2050 [8]. Today, the average commercial airplanes (e. g., Boeing 747), burn through approximately 36,000 gallons of fuel during the course of a 9-10-h flight [9]. One of the largest greenhouse gases created by commercial airplanes is carbon dioxide or CO2 [7]. CO2 is known to be one the most damaging manmade pollutants to our environment [10] and commercial aircraft are said to produce about 53 pounds of CO2 per mile (Clayton, n.d.). While the staggering growth of greenhouse emissions continues to rise, businesses worldwide, including the aviation industry have acknowledged their role in the construction of climate-changing emis sions and are working steadily to combat this issue. The Paris Agreement can be considered one major approach nations took to accelerate the need for sustainable practices and push for environmentally supported regulations [11]. The aviation industry, in particular, is making strives to reduce the carbon footprint left behind by commercial aircraft. Ac cording to the FAA’s Strategic Plan (2019), adopting the use of alter native fuels, promoting sustainable practices, and manufacturing through reusability, are just a few of the ways the FAA plans to rectify this problem.
nuts and coconuts took place in 2008 [19]. Since then, over 150,000 flights globally have used SAFs and many airlines are starting to implement biofuels and biofuel blends within their corporation [20]. Currently, United Airlines uses biofuels in every-day operations and has reduced greenhouse emissions by 60% on a life-cycle basis [22]. Still, with the expansion of biofuels available in some airports, the use of these environmentally friendly products accounted for only 0.01% of the total fuel used in 2018 [20]. Other large industries globally have already incorporated sustain able practices within their system (e.g., agriculture, manufacturing) [23] and the aviation industry is approaching an era where they can meet the demand of humans without sacrificing the resources future generations will need [24]. Therefore, it is vital to consider the accel eration of sustainable practices in aviation, and more importantly, un derstand how consumers will play a role in the continued implementation and advancement of these practices. 1.2.2. Willingness to pay Several studies have investigated consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives and found that they are willing to pay more for the use of renewable resources [2,3,25]; Rice, & Rice, in press [4–6]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). A study conducted in 2018 indicated that consumers are willing to pay more for the construction of a green airport and were more emotionally positive about the green airports compared to a traditional one [6]. Similarly, a study conducted in Switzerland explored air travelers’ demand for green products in aviation and found that 20% of travelers are willing to pay for these additional airline services [25]. [3]; Rice, and Rice (in press) suggested that support for environ mentally friendly airports is possibly influenced by personal political affiliation, with Liberal participants favoring Democratic projects that support sustainable practices. Furthermore, an extensive study explored how the use of biofuels affects how much passengers are willing to pay [4]. The authors found that passengers are willing to pay up to 13% more for the use of biofuels and supported the use of biofuels to reduce carbon emissions. Interestingly, emotions or affect played a significant role in willingness to pay and the type of fuel used [4]. A more recent study developed four statistical models that would indicate consumer’s support eco-friendly products in aviation (Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). They found that the perceived value of sustainability was the most significant indication of willingness to pay for renewable resources (Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press).
1.2. Development of green initiatives in aviation 1.2.1. Green airports and other sustainable practices The aviation industry is starting to take steps to reduce planetwarming effects by developing eco-friendly airports and fostering alternative fuel resources. The adoption of environmentally friendly airport design aspects was directed by the USA Green Building Council who later established a rating system called the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) [12]. LEED acknowledges sustainable practices, reusability, and energy-efficient tactics during the construc tion or manufacturing of businesses, homes, and even airports (LEED, n. d.). In fact, the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport in Tennessee was the first airport terminal in the world to receive a LEED Platinum Certifi cation (Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, n.d.). Some efforts that were recognized for this award was the use of bamboo on ceilings which is considered a rapidly renewable resource, recycled carpet and tile, and 95% of construction waste recycled (Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, n.d.). Many airports globally have also implemented sustainable practices within the construction or redesign process and have progressively aimed to meet real-world solutions. Some of the busiest and eco-friendly airports include Indira Gandhi Airport in India, which comprises of 300 rainwater capturing stations and the ability to save 70% of water supply [13]. These techniques have also been implemented in developing countries and have shown to be a successful sustainable practice [14]. Boston Logan International Airport in Massachusetts recently repaved eco-friendly asphalt on runways that reduced around 2000 tons of emissions during the course of its construction [15]. Furthermore, Changi Airport in Singapore is especially known for its design sur rounding nature with a collection of over 20,000 plant species and nearing 2500 trees [16]. With this vast array of plants, the airport continues to improve the quality of the air for passengers and workers while decreasing the airport’s temperature [16]. Another viable solution to reduce aviation’s carbon footprint is the use of alternative fuels. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) can be described as an incorporation of various biofuels created from plant-based prod ucts and can be considered a carbon-neutral fuel [17]. Biofuels are a promising alternative to petroleum fuels (i.e., fuel used in commercial aircrafts today) because of the ability to reduce greenhouse gases [18]. In the United States (U.S.), some SAFs that are permitted derived from oils, fats, agricultural wastes, and energy wastes (FAA, 2016). The first flight using a blend of biofuels made from Brazilian babassu
1.3. Possible influences of willingness to pay With the public gradually becoming more aware of the impact commercial aviation has on the environment, it is important to consider passengers’ perceptions and individual characteristics regarding the use of sustainable practices. There have been many studies that have examined consumer perceptions of the use of green products and found that affect or emotions, perceived value, and gender could potentially play a role [4–6,26]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). Research on emotions and decision-making is well-established and illustrate that emotions do, in fact, influence judgment and decision making [6,26–29]. Wright and Bower [29] concluded that participants who expressed optimism were more positive about future events than participants who reported being in a bad mood. Another study found that affect played a significant role in decision-making and willingness to pay for green airports [6]. When compared to the six universal emotions, the authors highlighted that participants felt anger and disgust for paying for a new airport that was not environmentally friendly. Furthermore, a more recent study validating a predictive model on a passenger’s willingness to fly on an autonomous commercial aircraft found that out of seven predictors, happiness was one of the most sig nificant [26]. Moreover, a notable study that explored which factors 2
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
would predict consumer support for sustainability in aviation found that consumer’s perceived value was significant across all the models and affect was significant in 75% of the models (Thropp and Rice (in press). Thus, emotions are almost always prevalent when making decisions [4] and it is important to understand passenger’s perceptions on green products to better understand how to increase the use of these products worldwide. Differences between genders have been seen in decision-making and risk-taking [30–32]. Research supports that in general, males are more likely to take risks than females [31]. A meta-analysis on gender dif ferences in risk-taking found that overall, females’ assessment of risk is greater while males are more likely to take less time accessing risks [30]. Several studies have also investigated differences between gender and behavior toward green products [4,33–36]. Many suggest that one difficulty with combating climate change is the separation of re sponsibility accounted for by both genders. In other words, research indicates that women are more likely to display more environmentally friendly attitudes and behavior than men [33,34]. In addition, men are more likely to litter and not participate in recycling techniques [37] and are less likely to use green products such as reusable water bottles [36]. Some studies seek to identify why this gap exists in eco-friendly development and implementation. Dietz, Kalof, and Stern [38] exam ined the relationship between values, traditionalism, and openness to change to identify how these factors contribute to gender differences in environmentalism. The authors found that women have demonstrated more concern for the environment, society, and tend to be more pro social. This could be due to an increased value for the future due to their nurturing nature [39]. Furthermore, research on differences between gender and green products have illustrated a possible stereotype associated with green products and femininity [33,40]. More fundamentally, green marketing has targeted specific consumers in family health, food industries, and cleaning which has been considered a female work field [33]. Although gender differences exist in many areas, some prior research on gender differences in sustainable practices in aviation has shown no significant differences [4]. Similarly, a more recent study on gender differences and willingness to pay more for the use of biofuels indicated no significant gender differences as well (Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). While the research on gender and sustainable practices in aviation is unexplored and mixed, this is promising news that the use of sustainable practices in aviation may not vary widely based on gender.
3. Study 1 – method Participants. Five hundred and eighty-three (312 females) people took part in the study. They were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, which is a site that provides online intelligence tasks for monetary compensation. This data has been found to be as reliable as laboratory data [41,42]; Rice, Winter, Doherty & Milner, 2016). Materials and Procedure. Participants were first presented with an electronic consent form followed by instructions for the task. They were then given the following hypothetical scenario: Imagine that you are on a commercial airplane flight from one domestic city to another for a holiday. This particular airplane uses a combination of biofuels and electric motors in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve its sustainability. The normal price for this ticket is $300 (three hundred) without flying on a sustainable airplane. In this case, the ticket price will increase by 5%. Based on that information, please answer the following questions. In other condi tions, the ticket price increase was 10% or 15%. In addition to this scenario, participants were presented with five different possible reductions in greenhouse gases, from 10% to 50% in 10% increments. After each of these possible scenarios, participants responded to a 7-point Likert-Type scale from “extremely unwilling to pay for this ticket” to “extremely willing to pay for this ticket”, with a neutral zero option (See Appendix A). Participants then filled out de mographics questions, were paid and dismissed. Design. The study used a mixed design with ticket price increase as a between-participants factor. This was operationally defined as whether participants would have to pay an additional 5%, 10% or 15% fee on top of the regular ticket price. The amount of greenhouse gas reduction was a within-participants factor. This was operationally defined as how much greenhouse gases would be reduced in 10% increment from 10% to 50%. Gender was included in the analyses as a between-participants factor. 4. Study 1 – results The data from Study 1 are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. A three-way analysis of variance using Gender and Ticket Price as the betweenparticipants factors, and Reduction as the within-participants factor found significant main effects of Gender, F(1, 577) ¼ 6.49, p ¼ .01, partial eta squared ¼ 0.01, Ticket Price, F(2, 577) ¼ 6.81, p ¼ .001, partial eta squared ¼ 0.02, and Reduction, F(4, 2308) ¼ 210.70, p < .001, partial eta squared ¼ 0.27. These main effects were qualified by a significant interaction between Gender and Reduction, F(4, 2308) ¼ 3.52, p ¼ .007, partial eta squared ¼ 0.01, indicating that as the amount of greenhouse gas is reduced, females are more willing to pay for that extra reduction compared to males. There were no other significant interactions in the data.
2. Current study While there has been quite a bit of research into sustainable trans portation, with some focus on sustainable aviation, no study that we know of has focused on how airplane ticket price increase interacts with reductions in greenhouse gases emitted by commercial aircraft. Across two studies, we presented participants with hypothetical scenarios about flying in a commercial airplane that was designed to reduce greenhouse gases by 10–50% in 10% increments. Participants were asked how willing they would be to pay an additional 5%, 10%, or 15% ticket price. In Study 1, we focused solely on short-haul domestic flights, while in Study 2, we focused on long-haul international flights. We hypothesized the following: Ha1: In general, willingness to pay the additional ticket price would increase as the amount of greenhouse gases were reduced. Ha2: There would be a cutoff in willingness to pay; that is, partici pants would not be willing to pay certain ticket price increases unless there was a specific reduction in greenhouse gases. Ha3: Willingness to pay the additional ticket price would be lower for more expensive, long-haul flights. Ha4: There would be gender differences in willingness to pay. This was a non-directional hypothesis based on the mixed findings in the literature.
5. Study 1 – discussion The data from Study 1 are straightforward. Participants became more willing to pay the additional ticket price if they were assured that the amount of greenhouse gases would be reduced. This appeared to be a monotonic effect across all three ticket price increase manipulations. The amount of ticket price increase also affected participants’ willing ness to pay the additional fee. This is not surprising, as consumers typically are not happy about paying too much extra for benefits they think should already be included in the price. In general, women were more willing to pay the additional ticket price compared to men, which supports much of the literature on this topic [4,33–36]. However, this is qualified by an interaction between gender and the amount of green house gas reduction; that is, the differences between males and females increased as the amount of greenhouse gas was reduced.
3
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
Fig. 1. Female data from Study 1 as a function of ticket price increase and greenhouse gas reduction. Standard error bars are included.
Fig. 2. Male data from Study 1 as a function of ticket price increase and greenhouse gas reduction. Standard error bars are included.
6. Study 2 – introduction
7. Study 2 – methods
The purpose of Study 2 was to replicate the findings from Study 1 using a scenario that involved a long-haul flight with a more expensive ticket. In Study 1, participants were presented with a base ticket price of $300 (domestic flight), while this was increased to $1000 (international flight) in Study 2. Our predictions remained the same as they were in Study 1.
Participants. Six hundred and nine (336 females) people took part in the study. As with Study 1, they were recruited from Amazon’s Me chanical Turk. Materials and Procedure. Study 2 was identical to Study 1 with one exception. The flight was described as a long-haul international flight and the original ticket price was increased to $1000.
4
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
an airport that was not environmentally friendly. Furthermore, Hinnen, Hille, and Wittmer [25] explored 811 individual’s willingness to pay for green products in air travel (e.g., reduced carbon emissions, organic food). They found that the majority of participants were willing to pay more for an airplane that had a reduction of greenhouse gases and offered organic food on-board. Although organic food on-board a flight is not being measured, it specifies that the public is moving into more sustainable practices in large areas such as food service agriculture as well [23]. Additionally, one study explored how the use of biofuels af fects how much passengers are willing to pay [4]. The authors indicated that passengers are willing to pay more for the use of biofuels and supported the use of biofuels to reduce carbon emissions. Perhaps, an individuals’ contribution towards environmentally-friendly products makes them feel a part of a larger global movement towards sustainable practices and in turn, makes them feel positive about the impact they will make for future generations. The second hypothesis stated that there would be a cutoff in will ingness to pay; that is, participants would not be willing to pay certain ticket price increases unless there was a significant reduction in green house gases. The results of the study supported this hypothesis. For example, in Study 1, participants in the 10% ticket increase condition were not willing to pay the additional fee unless they were assured of at least 30% reduction in greenhouse gases. In the 15% ticket increase condition, they were only willing to pay extra if they saw a 40% reduction. In Study 2, the cutoffs were higher as the base price of the ticket increased from $300 to $1000. Now participants demanded a reduction of 40% before they were willing to pay that additional 10% fee. This went up to a demand of 50% reduction before they were willing to pay the additional 15% fee. One recent study investigated whether or not consumers would be willing to pay more to fly on an aircraft that uses biofuels as opposed to an aircraft that uses traditional jet fuel [4]. The authors found that participants were willing to pay more for the use of biofuels in com mercial aircraft. More importantly, the authors highlight that consumers are willing to pay 13% extra for the use of biofuels and generally felt that using biofuels is more sustainable [4]. Based on prior literature [4] and the results from this current study, it appears that the public standards are a high reduction in greenhouse gases in order to pay additional prices. Ideally, passengers’ may want to know that they contributed to a
8. Study 2 – results The data from Study 2 are presented in Figs. 3 and 4. A three-way analysis of variance using Gender and Ticket Price as the betweenparticipants factors, and Reduction as the within-participants factor found significant main effects of Ticket Price, F(2, 603) ¼ 5.58, p ¼ .004, partial eta squared ¼ 0.02, and Reduction, F(4, 2412) ¼ 261.68, p < .001, partial eta squared ¼ 0.30. There were no significant interactions in the data. 9. Study 2 – discussion The findings from Study 2 replicated those from Study 1 except for the gender differences. Once again, participants were more willing to pay an additional ticket price as the amount of greenhouse gas emissions were decreased. They were also less willing to pay as the ticket price increase moved from 5% to 10%–15%. Contrary to the findings in Study 1, gender did not show up as a significant variable. We discuss the im plications of these findings in more detail in the general discussion. 10. General discussion Many studies that have concluded that people are willing to pay more for green initiatives within the aviation community [2,3]; Rice, & Rice, in press [4–6]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). However, to date, no study has investigated how much more individuals are willing to pay based on the percentage of greenhouse emissions reduced. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the threshold passengers are willing to pay towards the reduction of greenhouse emissions from commercial aircraft. The first hypothesis stated that in general, willingness to pay the additional ticket price would increase as the amount of greenhouse gases were reduced. The results of the study supported this hypothesis, in that, as greenhouse gases were reduced individuals were willing to pay more for the ticket price. These results represent the public’s support for green initiatives within the aviation community. Walters et al. [6], examined if consumers would be willing to pay more for a green airport as compared to a traditional airport. The authors found that participants were willing to pay for a sustainable airport and felt anger and disgust for paying for
Fig. 3. Female data from Study 2 as a function of ticket price increase and greenhouse gas reduction. Standard error bars are included. 5
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
Fig. 4. Male data from Study 2 as a function of ticket price increase and greenhouse gas reduction. Standard error bars are included.
gender differences in sustainable practices in aviation has shown no significant differences [4]. A more recent study on gender differences and willingness to pay more for the use of biofuels indicated no significant gender differences (Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). While the research on gender and sustainable practices in aviation is mixed, the results of the study suggest that the public is willing to pay more for the incorporation of sustainability within the aviation industry.
large reduction of greenhouse emissions and will only be willing to participate if they believe the amount of reduction of emissions will impact the near future. In reference to research in consumer psychology, individuals’ may just want to know they are getting the most out of the money they spend and invest. The third hypothesis stated that willingness to pay the additional ticket price would be lower for more expensive, long-haul flights. The results of the study supported this hypothesis showing that participants were less willing to pay for long-haul international flights. This was likely due to participants calculating how much extra cash they would have to pay. In the $300 domestic flight condition, an additional 10% fee resulted in an increase of $30. This changed to an increase of $100 for the $1000 international flight condition. One possibility for this outcome could be due to the fact that passengers’ may not be able to afford an additional $100; considering the long-haul distance is solely for international flights without taking into consideration of the other expenses associated with international travel. Future research should examine various ticket price increases as a function of shorter or longer haul flights. The fourth hypothesis stated that there would be gender differences in willingness to pay. The results of Study 1 supported this hypothesis, illustrating that there were significant differences between males and females in willingness to pay. Past research has demonstrated that fe males are more concerned with the environment and how wars among countries influence future generations [43]. Similarly, Dietz, Kalof, and Stern [38] examined the relationship between values, traditionalism, and openness to change to identify how these factors contribute to gender differences in environmentalism. The authors found that women have demonstrated more concern for the environment, society, and tend to be more prosocial. This could be due to an increased value for the future due to their nurturing nature [39]. Other studies have found that men are more likely to litter and not participate in recycling techniques [37] and are less likely to use green products such as reusable water bottles [36]. While gender differences are apparent in a variety of behaviors and perceptions, it is important to consider approaches taken to address these concerns to the population. Similar to how information is presented to individuals’ based on age, it might as well be beneficial to alter marketing strategies to include gender-neutral ideas to increase green participation. Although gender differences exist in many areas, some prior research on
11. Practical applications Airlines and aircraft manufacturers can use the results of this study to better understand the consumer, who ultimately determines the success of sustainable practices. Airline executives and marketing teams can use this data to set prices and develop marketing campaigns. Furthermore, these marketing campaigns can also guide the green movement to target not only females but males as well. This can help reduce and hopefully eliminate the idea that sustainability is a feminine movement and incorporate all who want to participate in reducing their carbon foot print. Public support for sustainable initiatives offers an incentive for more airlines to transition from conventional fuel to biofuels. As dependence on fossil fuels continues to deplete the earth of its natural resources (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] [17], biofuels offer an alternative that reduces, if not eliminates, the carbon emissions resulting from conventional jet fuel. 12. Limitations Similar to all studies, the current study has some existing limitations that need to be discussed. First, although there have been studies authenticating the use of MTurk as a reliable means of collecting data [41,42], the convenience sample used here may inhibit the generaliz ability of the data to the overall population [44]. It is important to conduct future research that will replicate these findings and provide a more precise assessment of effect sizes (Mehta et al., in press). Second, the use of hypothetical scenarios, while mandatory for this type of research due to the impossibility of collecting behavioral data, requires that we be cautious about making grand conclusions from this data. Future studies should replicate these findings to increase the validity of the study. 6
C. Rice et al.
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101224
13. Conclusions
[15] J. Baker, The world’s most environmentally friendly airports, Retrieved from, http s://www.airport-technology.com/features/worlds-environmentally-friendlyairports/, 2018. [16] J. Green, Singapore’s new garden airport, Retrieved from, https://dirt.asla.org/20 19/04/08/singapores-new-garden-airport/, 2019. [17] National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Biofuels as an alternative energy source for aviation—a survey (Report No. 2009-215587), Retrieved from, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100002886.pdf, 2009. [18] N. Yilmaz, A. Atmanli, Sustainable alternative fuels in aviation, Energy 140 (2017) 1378–1386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.077. [19] BBC News, UK | airline in first biofuel flight, Retrieved from, http://news.bbc.co. uk/2/hi/uk/7261214.stm, 2008, February 24. [20] P. Le Feuvre, Are aviation biofuels ready for take off?, Retrieved from, https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/march/are-aviation-biofuels-read y-for-take-off.html, 2019. [22] United Airlines, Sustainable Fuel Sources, 2018. Retrieved from, https://www.uni ted.com/ual/en/us/fly/company/globalcitizenship/environment/sustainable-fuel -sources.html. [23] A.A. Adenle, K. Wedig, H. Azadi, Sustainable agriculture and food security in africa: the role of innovative technologies and international organizations, Technol. Soc. 58 (2019) 101143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.05.007. [24] A.F. Appleton, Sustainability: a practitioner’s reflection, Technol. Soc. 28 (1) (2006) 3–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.001. [25] G. Hinnen, S.L. Hille, A. Wittmer, Willingness to pay for green products in air travel: ready for take-off? Willingness to pay for green products in air travel, Bus. Strateg. Environ. 26 (2) (2017) 197–208, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1909. [26] S. Rice, S.R. Winter, R. Mehta, N.K. Ragbir, What factors predict the type of person who is willing to fly in an autonomous commercial airplane? J. Air Transp. Manag. 75 (2019) 131–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.12.008. [27] J.M. George, E. Dane, Affect, emotion, and decision making, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 136 (2016) 47–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.004. [28] G. Loewenstein, J.S. Lerner, The role of affect in decision making, Handbook of affective science 619 (642) (2003) 3. [29] W.F. Wright, G.H. Bower, Mood effects on subjective probability assessment, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 52 (2) (1992) 276–291. [30] J.P. Byrnes, D.C. Miller, W.D. Schafer, Gender differences in risk taking: a metaanalysis, Psychol. Bull. 125 (3) (1999) 367–383, https://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.125.3.367. [31] C.C. Eckel, P.J. Grossman, Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence, Handbook of experimental economics results 1 (2008) 1061–1073. [32] G. Charness, U. Gneezy, Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 83 (1) (2012) 50–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jebo.2011.06.007. [33] A.R. Brough, J.E.B. Wilkie, J. Ma, M.S. Isaac, D. Gal, Is eco-friendly unmanly? the green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption, J. Consum. Res. 43 (4) (2016) 567–582, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044. [34] D.J. Davidson, W.R. Freudenburg, Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research, Environ. Behav. 28 (3) (1996) 302–339. [35] S.P. Cottrell, Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters, Environ. Behav. 35 (3) (2003) 347–375. [36] R. R€ aty, A. Carlsson-Kanyama, Energy consumption by gender in some european countries, Energy Policy 38 (1) (2010) 646–649, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2009.08.010. [37] C.A. Kallgren, R.R. Reno, R.B. Cialdini, A focus theory of normative conduct: when norms do and do not affect behavior, Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 (8) (2000) 1002–1012, https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610009. [38] T. Dietz, L. Kalof, P.C. Stern, Gender, values, and environmentalism, Soc. Sci. Q. 83 (1) (2002) 353–364, https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00088. [39] L.C. Zelezny, P. Chua, C. Aldrich, New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism, J. Soc. Issues 56 (3) (2000) 443–457, doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00177. [40] J. Bj€ ork, Mainstream green: moving sustainability from niche to normal, Retrieved from, http://www.goodlifer.com/2011/04/mainstream-green-moving-sustainabi lity-from-niche-to-normal/, 2013, February 11. [41] M. Buhrmester, T. Kwang, S.D. Gosling, Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6 (3) (2011) 3–5. [42] L. Germine, K. Nakayama, B.C. Duchaine, C.F. Chabris, G. Chatterjee, J.B. Wilmer, Is the web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19 (5) (2012) 847–857. [43] L. Huddy, S. Feldman, E. Cassese, Terrorism, Anxiety, and War. Terrorism and Torture: an Interdisciplinary Perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009. [44] S. Rice, S.R. Winter, S. Doherty, M.N. Milner, Advantages and disadvantages of using internet-based survey methods in aviation-related research, J. Aviation Technol and Eng. 7 (1) (2017) 58–65. [45] I. Cremer, S. Rice, S. Winter, Attitudes toward sustainability between Indians and Americans on water reuse for different purposes at airports, International Journal of Sustainable Aviation 1 (3) (2015) 234–244, https://doi.org/10.1504/ IJSA.2015.070371.
The purpose of this study was to examine some possible variables that affect consumer willingness to pay an additional ticket price in crease for flights that reduce the amount of greenhouse emissions. Prior studies have concluded that people are willing to pay more for green initiatives within the aviation community [2,3,45]; Rice, & Rice, in press [4–6]; Winter, Thropp, & Rice, in press). The current study adds to this literature by showing that more reductions in greenhouse gases increase willingness to pay an additional ticket price. This was somewhat limited in the 15% ticket price increase condition, particularly for long-haul flights. In addition, women were generally more willing to pay the additional ticket price compared to men; however, this was more pro nounced for shorter domestic flights compared to long-haul flights. Appendix A. Scale used to measure participant responses Extremely unwilling to pay for this ticket ( 3) Quite unwilling to pay for this ticket ( 2) Slightly unwilling to pay for this ticket ( 1) Neutral (0) Slightly willing to pay for this ticket (þ1) Quite willing to pay for this ticket (þ2) Extremely willing to pay for this ticket (þ3) References [1] The International Air Transport Association (IATA), ATA Forecast Predicts 8.2 Billion Air Travelers in 2037, 2018 (Press Release No.: 62). Retrieved from, https ://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-10-24-02.aspx. [2] I. Cremer, S. Rice, Which emotions mediate the relationship between type of water recycling projects and likelihood of using green airports? International Journal of Sustainable Aviation 1 (4) (2015) https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSA.2015.074725. [3] M. Milner, S. Rice, C. Rice, Support for environmentally-friendly airports influenced by political affiliation and social identity, Technol. Soc. 59 (2019) 101185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101185. [4] T. Rains, S.R. Winter, S. Rice, M. Milner, Z. Bledsaw, E. Anania, Biofuel and commercial aviation: will consumer pay more for it? International Journal of Sustainable Aviation 3 (3) (2017) 217–232, https://doi.org/10.1504/ IJSA.2017.086846. [5] S. Rice, The Public Supports Sustainable Aviation and They Are Willing Pay for it. Forbes, 2019, June. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenrice1/2019/06/05/th e-public-supports-sustainable-aviation-and-they-are-willing-pay-for-it/#1a1 787ab7282. [6] N.W. Walters, S. Rice, S.R. Winter, B.S. Baugh, N.K. Ragbir, E.C. Anania, J. Capps, M.N. Milner, Consumer willingness to pay for new airports that use renewable resources, The International Journal of Sustainable Aviation 4 (2) (2018) 79–98, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSA.2018.094227. [7] Center for Biological Diversity, Up in the air: how airplane carbon pollution jeopardizes global climate goals, Retrieved from, https://www.biologicaldiversity. org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplan e_emissions/pdfs/Airplane_Pollution_Report_December2015.pdf, 2015. [8] A.A. Gialos, V. Zeimpekis, N.D. Alexopoulos, N. Kashaev, S. Riekehr, A. Karanika, Investigating the impact of sustainability in the production of aeronautical subscale components, J. Clean. Prod. 176 (2018) 785–799, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.12.151. [9] W. Roberson, Fuel Conservation Strategies: Takeoff and Climb, 2014. Retrieved from, https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_08/art icle_05_1.html. [10] International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions statistics: an essential tool for analysts and policy makers, Retrieved from, https://www.iea.org/statistics/co2emissions/, 2019. [11] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Paris Agreement, 2015. Retrieved from, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agree ment.pdf. [12] J. Ahn, Development of Energy Performance Metrics for Airport Terminal Buildings Using Multivariate Regression Modelling, 2016. Doctoral dissertation, Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and thesis Global, Order No. 10583302. [13] N. Prasad, Delhi’s Igi Airport Saves 70% Water by Using New EnvironmentFriendly Techniques; Details Here, 2019. Retrieved from, https://www.financiale xpress.com/infrastructure/airlines-aviation/delhis-igi-airport-saves-70-water-byusing-new-environment-friendly-techniques-details-here/1514706/. [14] S. Esposto, The sustainability of applied technologies for water supply in developing countries, Technol. Soc. 31 (3) (2009) 257–262, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.06.009.
7