Natural Hazards

, Volume 95, Issue 1–2, pp 129–153 | Cite as

Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housing based on double-entry mental accounting theory

  • Qianwen Li
  • Ruyin LongEmail author
  • Hong ChenEmail author
  • Feiyu Chen
  • Xiu Cheng
Original Paper


Promotion and use of green housing is an important way to reduce building energy consumption, achieve emission reduction targets, and improve residential environments. In the process of consumer choice of green housing, residents’ psychological behaviors, product characteristics of green housing, and option framing methods all have an important influence on the willingness to pay (WTP). This paper analyzed WTP for green housing using two sets of experiments from the perspectives of consumer behavior theory and behavioral economics. Taking four cities with high levels of green housing development in China as examples to conduct large-scale empirical studies, we explored the impact of double-entry mental accounting on resident WTP for green housing. The results show that (1) each dimension of perceived benefits is significantly positively correlated with WTP, each dimension of perceived sacrifices is significantly negatively correlated with WTP, and the sensitivity coefficient of functional risk and policy risk is relatively large, i.e., WTP is more sensitive to functional risk and policy risk. (2) Double-entry mental accounting has a significant moderating effect between residents perceived value and WTP. The stronger the positive correlation between perceived benefits and the WTP when the larger pain of payment (large coefficient of pleasure attenuation or small coefficient of pain buffering) rather than smaller pain of payment meaning greater impact of perceived benefits on WTP. Negative correlation between perceived sacrifices and WTP is weak when residents have small coefficient of pleasure attenuation, indicating that the residents have higher psychological enjoyment when making consumption decisions. Hence, WTP is still high even in situations with higher perceived sacrifice. However, the coefficient of pain buffering has no significant moderating effect on the relationship between perceived sacrifices and WTP. (3) In the context of different framing effects, resident values mediate between perceived benefits and WTP, and the framing effect can influence resident WTP. Resident WTP for green housing is higher in the context of subtractive framing compared with additive framing. Various proposals are provided at government and developer level based on the study outcomes.


Green housing Double-entry mental accounting Perceived value Option framing method Willingness to pay 



This study was financially supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71473247), Think Tank of Green Safety Management and Policy Science (2018 “Double First-Class” Initiative Project for Cultural Evolution and Creation of CUMT 2018WHCC03).


  1. Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions—institute for social and economic research (ISER). J Oper Res Soc 45(1):119–120Google Scholar
  2. Bertini M, Ofek E, Dan A et al (2007) To add or not to add? The effects of add-ons on product evaluation. Adv Consum Res 34(1):163Google Scholar
  3. Buerke A, Straatmann T, Lin-Hi N et al (2017) Consumer awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation as motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior. RMS 11(4):1–33Google Scholar
  4. Chatterjee S, Heath TB (2007) Conflict and loss aversion in multiattribute choice: the effects of trade-off size and reference dependence on decision difficulty. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 67(2):144–155Google Scholar
  5. Cheng A, Cryder C (2018) Double mental discounting: when a single price promotion feels twice as nice. J Mark Res 55(2):226–238Google Scholar
  6. China Association of Building Energy Efficiency (CABEE) (2017) China building energy consumption research report. Accessed 5 Dec 2017
  7. Chitturi R, Raghunathan R, Mahajan V (2008) Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. J Mark 72(3):48–63Google Scholar
  8. Demirgüneş BK (2015) Relative importance of perceived value, satisfaction and perceived risk on willingness to pay more. Int Rev Manag Mark 5(4):211–220Google Scholar
  9. Desarbo WS, Wu J (2001) The joint spatial representation of multiple variable batteries collected in marketing research. J Mark Res 38(2):244–253Google Scholar
  10. Ding Z, Jiang X, Liu Z et al (2018) Factors affecting low-carbon consumption behavior of urban residents: a comprehensive review. Resour Conserv Recycl 132:3–15Google Scholar
  11. Dragojevic M, Giles H (2014) The reference frame effect: an intergroup perspective on language attitudes. Hum Commun Res 40(1):91–111Google Scholar
  12. Dunegan KJ (1993) Framing, cognitive modes, and image theory: toward an understanding of a glass half full. J Appl Psychol 78(3):491–503Google Scholar
  13. Forsythe S, Liu C, Shannon D et al (2010) Development of a scale to measure the perceived benefits and risks of online shopping. J Interact Mark 20(2):55–75Google Scholar
  14. Groot JIMD, Steg L, Poortinga W (2013) Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Anal 33(2):307–317Google Scholar
  15. Hayes AF, Preacher KJ (2013) Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Br J Math Stat Psychol 67(3):451–470Google Scholar
  16. Henderson-Wilson C, Sia KL, Veitch J et al (2017) Perceived health benefits and willingness to pay for parks by park users: quantitative and qualitative research. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(5):529Google Scholar
  17. Herrmann A, Hildebrand C, Sprott DE et al (2013) Option framing and product feature recommendations: product configuration and choice. Psychol Mark 30(12):1053–1061Google Scholar
  18. Herweg Fabian, Karle Heiko, Müller Daniel (2017) Incomplete contracting, renegotiation, and expectation-based loss aversion. J Econ Behav Organ 1(7):301–304Google Scholar
  19. Hossain MT (2018) How cognitive style influences the mental accounting system: role of analytic versus holistic thinking. J Consum Res. Google Scholar
  20. Howell RA (2013) It’s not (just) ‘‘the environment, stupid!’’ values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Glob Environ Change 23(4):281–290Google Scholar
  21. Jin LY, He YQ, Song HY (2012) Service customization: to upgrade or to downgrade? An investigation of how option framing affects tourists’ choice of package-tour services. Tour Manag 33(2):266–275Google Scholar
  22. Kamleitner B, Hoelzl E (2009) Cost-benefit associations and financial behavior. Appl Psychol 58(3):435–452Google Scholar
  23. Kramer T, Kim HM (2007) Processing fluency versus novelty effects in deal perceptions. J Prod Brand Manag 16(2):142–147Google Scholar
  24. Kritiyachotipakorn K, Panichpathom S, Sriboonjit J et al (2013) How customer perceived value and perceived risk influence? The purchase intention and willingness to pay for 30-years Leasehold Luxury residences in Bangkok. Eres 12:515–521Google Scholar
  25. Leppäniemi M, Karjaluoto H, Saarijärvi H (2017) Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of willingness to share information. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 27(2):164–188Google Scholar
  26. Levin IP, Schreiber J, Lauriola M et al (2002) A tale of two pizzas: building up from a basic product versus scaling down from a fully-loaded product. Mark Lett 13(4):335–344Google Scholar
  27. Li J (2016) Energy performance heterogeneity in China’s buildings sector: a data-driven investigation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 58:1587–1600Google Scholar
  28. Li G, Li G, Kambele Z (2012) Luxury fashion brand consumers in China: perceived value, fashion lifestyle, and willingness to pay. J Bus Res 65(10):1516–1522Google Scholar
  29. Liaw SY, Le TM (2017) Under interruptive effects of rarity and mental accounting, whether the online purchase intention can still be enhanced even with higher search costs and perceived risk. Int J Bus Manag 12(8):160Google Scholar
  30. Ma M, Yan R, Cai W (2017) A STIRPAT model-based methodology for calculating energy savings in China’s existing civil buildings from 2001 to 2015. Nat Hazards 87(3):1–17Google Scholar
  31. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (MOHURD) (2017). Accessed 18 Dec 2017
  32. Parasuraman A, Grewal D (2000) The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty chain: a research agenda. J Acad Mark Sci 28(1):168Google Scholar
  33. Park S, Kim MY (2012) The impact of attribute importance in the effects of option framing on choice: budget range and justification as moderators of loss aversion. Psychol Mark 29(10):726–737Google Scholar
  34. Park CW, Jun SY, Macinnis DJ (2000) Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: an application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. J Mark Res 37(2):187–202Google Scholar
  35. Prelec D, Loewenstein G (1998) The red and the black: mental accounting of savings and debt. Mark Sci 17(1):4–28Google Scholar
  36. Price JC, Walker IA, Boschetti F (2014) Measuring cultural values and beliefs about environment to identify their role in climate change responses. J Environ Psychol 37(3):8–20Google Scholar
  37. Ran K, Simonson I (2002) Self-control for the righteous: toward a theory of precommitment to indulgence. J Consum Res 29(2):199–217Google Scholar
  38. Rick SI, Cryder CE, Loewenstein G (2008) Tightwads and spendthrifts. Soc Sci Electron Publ 34(6):767–782Google Scholar
  39. Sedlacek S, Maier G (2012) Can green building councils serve as third party governance institutions? An economic and institutional analysis. Energy Policy 49(49):479–487Google Scholar
  40. Shown H (2014) Product demand forecasting and dynamic pricing considering consumers’ mental accounting and peak-end reference effects. J Appl Math 2014:1–10Google Scholar
  41. Shukla Paurav (2010) Effects of perceived sacrifice, quality, value, and satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the service environment. Serv Mark Q 31(4):466–484Google Scholar
  42. Slobbe EV, Vriend HJD, Aarninkhof S et al (2013) Building with nature: in search of resilient storm surge protection strategies. Nat Hazards 65(1):947–966Google Scholar
  43. Soyez K (2012) How national cultural values affect pro-environmental consumer behavior. Int Mark Rev 29(6):623Google Scholar
  44. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2005) Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J Environ Psychol 25(4):415–425Google Scholar
  45. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof LA (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case for environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6(2):81–97Google Scholar
  46. Strahilevitz MA, Loewenstein G (1998) The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. J Consum Res 25(3):276–289Google Scholar
  47. Sulemana I (2016) Are happier people more willing to make income sacrifices to protect the environment? Soc Indic Res 127(1):447–467Google Scholar
  48. Sun C, Nan L, Ouyang X (2014) Chinese public willingness to pay to avoid having nuclear power plants in the neighborhood. Sustainability 6(10):7197–7223Google Scholar
  49. Sun C, Yuan X, Xu M (2016a) The public perceptions and willingness to pay: from the perspective of the smog crisis in China. J Clean Prod 112:1635–1644Google Scholar
  50. Sun C, Yuan X, Yao X (2016b) Social acceptance towards the air pollution in China: evidence from public’s willingness to pay for smog mitigation. Energy Policy 92:313–324Google Scholar
  51. Thaler RH (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Mark Sci 4(3):199–214Google Scholar
  52. Thaler RH (1990) Anomalies: saving, fungibility, and mental accounts. J Econ Perspect 4(1):193–205Google Scholar
  53. Thaler RH (1999) Mental accounting matters. J Behav Decis Mak 12(3):183–206Google Scholar
  54. Thomas M, Desai KK, Seenivasan S (2011) How credit card payments increase unhealthy food purchases: visceral regulation of vices. J Consum Res 38(1):126–139Google Scholar
  55. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453Google Scholar
  56. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1984) Choices, values, frames. Am Psychol 39(4):341–350Google Scholar
  57. Wan X, Li Q, Wu J et al (2015) The effect of option framing on consumers decision-making efficiency: evidence from online service customization. Afr J Bus Manag 9(6):298–310Google Scholar
  58. Wang K, Yu S, Li M et al (2015) Multi-directional efficiency analysis-based regional industrial environmental performance evaluation of China. Nat Hazards 75(2):273–299Google Scholar
  59. World Green Building Trends (2016) Accessed 26 June 2017
  60. Yang RJ, Zou PXW, Wang J (2016) Modelling stakeholder-associated risk networks in green building projects. Int J Proj Manag 34(1):66–81Google Scholar
  61. Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 52(3):2–22Google Scholar
  62. Zhang W, Fu X, Lu J et al (2016) Understanding farmers’ decision making in agricultural water fee payment in china: the role of mental accounting. Water 8(9):375Google Scholar
  63. Zhao X, Lynch JG, Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Soc Sci Electron Publ 37(2):197–206Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementChina University of Mining and TechnologyXuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations