On the quest for consequentiality

Stated preference surveys are widely used to value environmental goods, but their validity partly depends on respondents believing their answers matter for policy. This study examines whether institutional cues (names and logos) in survey scripts can enhance perceived consequentiality and tests the ‘knife-edge’ effect-whether respondents behave similarly regardless of consequentiality strength, in a multinomial choice context. Using a discrete choice experiment on stormwater pond management with 1,485 Florida homeowners, we implement six treatments varying from no script to full institutional information. Surprisingly, institutional identifiers fail to increase perceived consequentiality, though they affect valuations of specific attributes like planting diversity and flood control. The knife-edge effect shows mixed support: while it holds for highly consequential respondents across most attributes, we find significant preference differences at broader consequentiality levels for 85% nitrogen removal efficiency, 25% less frequent flooding, and status quo choices. These findings challenge the binary treatment of consequentiality in environmental valuations, suggesting researchers need more nuanced approaches to account for varying consequentiality.