Cited by 8Economic and Environmental ValuationEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessEnvironmental Education and Sustainability

Consumer perception of environmental harm and willingness to pay environmental handling fees

Open access
Lakhan, Calvin·2016·Environments

Abstract

This study undertook a critical examination of the relationship between perception of environmental harm and consumer willingness to pay for environmental handling fees (EHF). This analysis was supplemented by asking study participants to indicate under what circumstances (and for what materials) they believe a visible fee is appropriate. This study found that there is a statistically significant correlation between willingness to pay environmental handling fees and the perceived environmental harm of the product on which the fee is applied. For items that respondents viewed as “innocuous to the environment” (i.e., “keyboards and mice”), they were relatively unwilling to pay an environmental handling fee. Conversely, for the full range of hazardous waste materials, consumers expressed a willingness to pay EHFs. With respect to fee visibility, respondents indicated that they preferred visible fees (at the sticker) for products that they perceived to be dangerous. There is a strong correlation between perceived environmental harm and whether fees should be visible. Consumers are not necessarily averse to paying an eco fee on products (be they hazardous waste, electronic waste, etc.), but their willingness to do so is almost entirely a function of whether they believe the product is environmentally burdensome. It is the recommendation of this study that promotion and education campaigns for environmental handling fees, particularly those surrounding waste electronics, place greater emphasis on environmental consequences of improper disposal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/environments3010008

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Krever, R.; van der Westhuysen, A. Tax-Exclusive or Tax-Inclusive Pricing: Amazement and Dismay from Abroad. Can. Tax J. 2010, 58, 787-789.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lakhan, C.
Affiliations
Wilfrid Laurier University (CA)
Corresponding author
Lakhan, Calvin
Venue
Environments
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2016-03-18
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
8
ISSN
2076-3298 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2297784392
Cited by
8
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environments (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
Keywords
willingness to pay, consumer perception, hazardous waste, electronic waste, environmental education campaigns

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review