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

    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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. 0(Number 2), pages 1-13, October.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    22. 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.
    23. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. 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. repec:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:228-:d:127584 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:eee:enepol:v:114:y:2018:i:c:p:98-107 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Willingness to pay; Climate change; Mitigation policy; Contingent valuation;

    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.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.