IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i5p2452-d1087679.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining Preference for Energy-Related Information through a Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Makiko Nakano

    (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan)

Abstract

Many studies have shown that providing information on energy consumption to a household is effective, to some extent, in encouraging its energy conservation behavior. These studies provided information free of charge. However, depending on the type of information, a household must bear costs, such as installing the necessary equipment to obtain the information. Are people willing to pay for the information? In this study, a questionnaire survey was conducted to examine willingness to pay (WTP) for energy-related information using a choice experiment. The data were analyzed using conditional logit and latent class models. Positive WTP was estimated for information on the total energy consumption amount for the entire house, detailed electricity usage amount for each major home appliance, electricity rates by time zone, and power source composition of electricity. No significant positive results were obtained for comparison with the other households, as the class that accounted for about 40% of the analyzed sample had negative WTP for this information. When electricity companies provide comparative information, it is better to carefully consider how and to whom they provide it. The results of the latent class model show that preferences vary among classes. Although some preference variations exist, some households have a positive WTP for information on energy consumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Makiko Nakano, 2023. "Examining Preference for Energy-Related Information through a Choice Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:5:p:2452-:d:1087679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/5/2452/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/5/2452/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Chien-fei & Nelson, Hannah & Xu, Xiaojing & Bonilla, Gregory & Jones, Nicholas, 2021. "Beyond technology adoption: Examining home energy management systems, energy burdens and climate change perceptions during COVID-19 pandemic," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Zorić, Jelena & Hrovatin, Nevenka, 2012. "Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 180-187.
    3. Makiko Nakano, 2019. "Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility by Consumers: Use of Organic Material and Long Working Hours of Employees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    5. Chatzigeorgiou, I.M. & Andreou, G.T., 2021. "A systematic review on feedback research for residential energy behavior change through mobile and web interfaces," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. Murakami, Kayo & Ida, Takanori & Tanaka, Makoto & Friedman, Lee, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 178-189.
    7. Lee, Chul-Yong & Heo, Hyejin, 2016. "Estimating willingness to pay for renewable energy in South Korea using the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 150-156.
    8. Jain, Manisha & Rao, Anand B. & Patwardhan, Anand, 2018. "Appliance labeling and consumer heterogeneity: A discrete choice experiment in India," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 213-224.
    9. Morita, Tamaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2015. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for electricity after the Great East Japan Earthquake," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 82-105.
    10. Kathleen Jacobs & Jacob Hörisch, 2022. "The importance of product lifetime labelling for purchase decisions: Strategic implications for corporate sustainability based on a conjoint analysis in Germany," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1275-1291, May.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    12. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    13. Akcura, Elcin, 2015. "Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 84-94.
    14. Ayu Washizu & Satoshi Nakano & Hideo Ishii & Yasuhiro Hayashi, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for Home Energy Management Systems: A Survey in New York and Tokyo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Penelope Buckley, 2020. "Prices, information and nudges for residential electricity conservation : A meta-analysis," Post-Print hal-02500507, HAL.
    16. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    17. WeiYu Ji & Edwin H. W. Chan, 2019. "Critical Factors Influencing the Adoption of Smart Home Energy Technology in China: A Guangdong Province Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-24, November.
    18. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Furszyfer Del Rio, Dylan D., 2020. "Smart home technologies in Europe: A critical review of concepts, benefits, risks and policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    19. Koo, A Mi & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Household willingness to pay for a smart water metering and monitoring system: The case of South Korea," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    20. Guo, Xiurui & Liu, Haifeng & Mao, Xianqiang & Jin, Jianjun & Chen, Dongsheng & Cheng, Shuiyuan, 2014. "Willingness to pay for renewable electricity: A contingent valuation study in Beijing, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 340-347.
    21. Rihar, Miha & Hrovatin, Nevenka & Zoric, Jelena, 2015. "Household valuation of smart-home functionalities in Slovenia," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 42-53.
    22. Andor, Mark A. & Fels, Katja M., 2018. "Behavioral Economics and Energy Conservation – A Systematic Review of Non-price Interventions and Their Causal Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 178-210.
    23. Kaufmann, Simon & Künzel, Karoline & Loock, Moritz, 2013. "Customer value of smart metering: Explorative evidence from a choice-based conjoint study in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 229-239.
    24. Buckley, Penelope, 2020. "Prices, information and nudges for residential electricity conservation: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    25. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    26. Gerpott, Torsten J. & Paukert, Mathias, 2013. "Determinants of willingness to pay for smart meters: An empirical analysis of household customers in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 483-495.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Ilona Alisauskaite-Seskiene & Gintare Stankuniene & Zaneta Simanaviciene, 2019. "A Review of Willingness to Pay Studies for Climate Change Mitigation in the Energy Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-38, April.
    2. Chen, Chien-fei & Nelson, Hannah & Xu, Xiaojing & Bonilla, Gregory & Jones, Nicholas, 2021. "Beyond technology adoption: Examining home energy management systems, energy burdens and climate change perceptions during COVID-19 pandemic," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    3. Bae, Jeong Hwan & Rishi, Meenakshi & Li, Dmitriy, 2021. "Consumer preferences for a green certificate program in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    4. Woo, JongRoul & Moon, Sungho & Choi, Hyunhong, 2022. "Economic value and acceptability of advanced solar power systems for multi-unit residential buildings: The case of South Korea," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    5. Zhang, Chaoqun & Zha, Donglan & Jiang, Pansong & Wang, Fu & Yang, Guanglei & Salman, Muhammad & Wu, Qing, 2023. "The effect of customized information feedback on individual electricity saving behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    6. Kyu-Won Hwang & Jaekyun Ahn & Chul-Yong Lee, 2023. "Analysis of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Community Solar Business Using Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    8. 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.
    9. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
    11. Balezentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mikalauskas, Ignas & Shen, Zhiyang, 2021. "Towards carbon free economy and electricity: The puzzle of energy costs, sustainability and security based on willingness to pay," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    12. Mohseni, Soheil & Brent, Alan C. & Kelly, Scott & Browne, Will N., 2022. "Demand response-integrated investment and operational planning of renewable and sustainable energy systems considering forecast uncertainties: A systematic review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    13. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    14. Lazaric, Nathalie & Toumi, Mira, 2022. "Reducing consumption of electricity: A field experiment in Monaco with boosts and goal setting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    16. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    17. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    18. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    19. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    20. Irie, Noriko & Kawahara, Naoko, 2022. "Consumer preferences for local renewable electricity production in Japan: A choice experiment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 1171-1181.

    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:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:5:p:2452-:d:1087679. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.