IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v55y2016icp148-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of question format for the support for national climate change mitigation policies in Germany and the determinants of WTP

Author

Listed:
  • Uehleke, Reinhard

Abstract

This contingent valuation survey examines the willingness to pay (WTP) for climate change mitigation in Germany. Willingness to pay is assessed by using a classic dichotomous choice referendum format and a two-way payment ladder in a split-sample design. We find that mean WTP under the referendum format is more than twice the WTP in the payment ladder format, but median WTP does not differ. Moreover, we test the possible effect of different determinants on WTP. Determinants that considerably influence WTP are personal norm, climate change scepticism, agreement with the German Renewable Energy Law and individualistic cognition. Income and gender are also important predictors.

Suggested Citation

  • Uehleke, Reinhard, 2016. "The role of question format for the support for national climate change mitigation policies in Germany and the determinants of WTP," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 148-156.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:55:y:2016:i:c:p:148-156
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988316000475
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Mullahy, 1998. "Much Ado About Two: Reconsidering Retransformation and the Two-Part Model in Health Economics," NBER Technical Working Papers 0228, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Champ, Patricia A. & Alberini, Anna & Correas, Ignacio, 2005. "Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 47-60, October.
    3. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    4. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
    5. Li, Hui & Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2004. "Would developing country commitments affect US households' support for a modified Kyoto Protocol?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 329-343, March.
    6. Adam Corner & Lorraine Whitmarsh & Dimitrios Xenias, 2012. "Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 463-478, October.
    7. Hwang, Joonghyun & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2014. "Consequentiality and Opt-out Responses in Stated Preference Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    8. Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop, 2006. "Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 162-173.
    9. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
    10. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    11. Peter Groothuis & John Whitehead, 2002. "Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(15), pages 1935-1940.
    12. Aldy, Joseph Edgar & Leiserowitz, Anthony A & Kotchen, Matthew J, 2012. "Willingness to Pay and Political Support for a U.S. National Clean Energy Standard," Scholarly Articles 8832942, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    13. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    14. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    15. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    16. Haener, Michel K. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1998. "Analysis of “Don't Know†Responses to Referendum Contingent Valuation Questions," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 218-230, October.
    17. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2004. "Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 331-363, March.
    18. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    19. Haener, Michel K. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1998. "Analysis Of "Don'T Know" Response To Referendum Contingent Valuation Questions," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, October.
    20. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Pere Riera & Bengt Kriström & Runar Brännlund & Marek Giergiczny, 2014. "Exploring the determinants of uncertainty in contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 186-200, July.
    21. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 417-436, December.
    22. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    23. Mullahy, John, 1998. "Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health econometrics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-281, June.
    24. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    25. Domínguez Arcos, Fernando & Labandeira Villot, Xavier & Loureiro García, María, 2011. "Climate Change Policies And Social Preferences In Galicia And Spain," Revista Galega de Economía, University of Santiago de Compostela. Faculty of Economics and Business., vol. 20(1).
    26. Tom Hertz, 2010. "Heteroskedasticity-robust elasticities in logarithmic and two-part models," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 225-228, February.
    27. Joseph E. Aldy & Matthew J. Kotchen & Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2012. "Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 596-599, August.
    28. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    29. Adaman, Fikret & KaralI, Nihan & Kumbaroglu, Gürkan & Or, Ilhan & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2011. "What determines urban households' willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 689-698, February.
    30. P. Wilner Jeanty, 2007. "Constructing Krinsky and Robb Confidence Interval for Mean and Median WTP Using Stata," North American Stata Users' Group Meetings 2007 8, Stata Users Group, revised 30 Aug 2007.
    31. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2009. "Dichotomous-choice contingent valuation with 'dont know' responses and misreporting," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(7), pages 1137-1152.
    32. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Leiserowitz, Anthony A., 2013. "Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 617-625.
    33. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    34. Manning, Willard G. & Mullahy, John, 2001. "Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 461-494, July.
    35. Randall A. Kramer & D. Evan Mercer, 1997. "Valuing a Global Environmental Good: U.S. Residents' Willingness to Pay to Protect Tropical Rain Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 196-210.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yu, Ying & Yamaguchi, Kensuke & Thuy, Truong Dang & Kittner, Noah, 2022. "Will the public in emerging economies support renewable energy? Evidence from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. Hammerle, Mara & Best, Rohan & Crosby, Paul, 2021. "Public acceptance of carbon taxes in Australia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Xie, Bai-Chen & Zhao, Wei, 2018. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Tianjin, China: Based on the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 98-107.
    4. Zhao, Yibing & Wang, Can & Sun, Yuwei & Liu, Xianbing, 2018. "Factors influencing companies' willingness to pay for carbon emissions: Emission trading schemes in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 357-367.
    5. Koto, Prosper Senyo & Yiridoe, Emmanuel K., 2019. "Expected willingness to pay for wind energy in Atlantic Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 80-88.
    6. Liping Ding & Fan Zhang & Jing Shuai, 2018. "How Do Chinese Residents Expect of Government Subsidies on Solar Photovoltaic Power Generation?—A Case of Wuhan, China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, January.
    7. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alló, Maria & Loureiro, Maria L., 2014. "The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 563-574.
    2. Jens Abildtrup & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Udo Mantau & Robert Mavsar & Davide Pettenella & Irina Prokofieva & Florian Schubert & Anne Stenger & Elsa Varela & Enrico Vidale & , 2023. "Preferences for climate change policies: the role of co-benefits," Post-Print hal-04132398, HAL.
    3. Kilgore, Michael A. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Schertz, Joseph & Taff, Steven J., 2008. "What does it take to get family forest owners to enroll in a forest stewardship-type program?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 507-514, October.
    4. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    5. Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Mohamed, Shukri F. & Otieno, Peter & Wambiya, Elvis & Mutua, Martin Kavao & Danaei, Goodarz, 2020. "Economic valuation of setting up a social health enterprise in urban poor-resource setting in Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    6. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    9. Champ, Patricia A. & Alberini, Anna & Correas, Ignacio, 2005. "Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 47-60, October.
    10. Toni Mora & Joan Gil & Antoni Sicras-Mainar, 2015. "The influence of obesity and overweight on medical costs: a panel data perspective," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 161-173, March.
    11. Jay Dev Dubey, 2021. "Measuring Income Elasticity of Healthcare-Seeking Behavior in India: A Conditional Quantile Regression Approach," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 19(4), pages 767-793, December.
    12. Tvinnereim, Endre & Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth, 2016. "Fossil fuels, employment, and support for climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 364-371.
    13. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2009. "Dichotomous-choice contingent valuation with 'dont know' responses and misreporting," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(7), pages 1137-1152.
    14. Jones, Benjamin A. & Ripberger, Joseph & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol, 2017. "Estimating willingness to pay for greenhouse gas emission reductions provided by hydropower using the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 362-370.
    15. Bakkensen, Laura & Schuler, Paul, 2020. "A preference for power: Willingness to pay for energy reliability versus fuel type in Vietnam," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    16. Li, Hui & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Berrens, Robert P. & Herron, Kerry G., 2009. "Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: Investigating household willingness-to-pay for energy research and development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 731-742, January.
    17. Jones, Benjamin A. & Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol & Ripberger, Joe & Carlson, Deven & Gupta, Kuhika & Wehde, Wesley, 2018. "In search of an inclusive approach: Measuring non-market values for the effects of complex dam, hydroelectric and river system operations," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 225-236.
    18. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    19. Patrick Richard & Regine Walker & Pierre Alexandre, 2018. "The burden of out of pocket costs and medical debt faced by households with chronic health conditions in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, June.
    20. Buntin, Melinda Beeuwkes & Zaslavsky, Alan M., 2004. "Too much ado about two-part models and transformation?: Comparing methods of modeling Medicare expenditures," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 525-542, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Willingness to pay; Climate change; Mitigation policy; Contingent valuation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:55:y:2016:i:c:p:148-156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.