IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nzar14/188376.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Environmental attitude and the demand for green electricity in the context of supplier choice: A case study of the New Zealand retail electricity market

Author

Listed:
  • Ndebele, Tom
  • Marsh, Dan

Abstract

There is growing interest in non-market valuation research to explore the importance of attitudes and perceptions in explaining heterogeneity of preferences among consumers. Previous research on environmental attitude (EA) and its influence on preferences has been criticised for the non-systematic way in which researchers have measured EA. This paper investigates the effect of environmental attitude on the demand for green electricity in New Zealand, identifies groups (latent classes) with homogenous preferences, and estimates willingness (WTP) for “green” electricity in the context of supplier choice or switching. The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale is used to measure EA, and we examine the effect of using sub-scales of the NEP Scale on posterior class membership probabilities. To generate the data required for this research, an online choice experiments survey targeting residential electricity bill payers in New Zealand was conducted in February 2014. A usable sample of 224 respondents was achieved. Data was analysed using a latent class framework in which the integration of EA with stated choice is either direct via the utility function as interactions with the attribute levels of alternatives or as a variable in the class membership probability model. We identify three latent classes with different preferences for the attributes of electricity suppliers. A typical respondent with a high NEP Scale score is willing to pay on average $12.80 more per month on their power bill to secure a 10% increase in electricity generated from renewable energy sources compared to respondents with low NEP scores. Furthermore, the results suggest that the sub-scales of the NEP Scale are less accurate in assigning respondents to environmental classes and that the sub-scale with 5 items is less accurate than the sub-scale with 10 items.

Suggested Citation

  • Ndebele, Tom & Marsh, Dan, 2014. "Environmental attitude and the demand for green electricity in the context of supplier choice: A case study of the New Zealand retail electricity market," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 188376, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:nzar14:188376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/188376/files/NdebeleMarsh2014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    2. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Moore, Michael R., 2007. "Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    4. Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1061-1076, December.
    5. Walker, Joan & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2002. "Generalized random utility model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 303-343, July.
    6. Oliver, Henry & Volschenk, Jako & Smit, Eon, 2011. "Residential consumers in the Cape Peninsula's willingness to pay for premium priced green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 544-550, February.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    8. Kaenzig, Josef & Heinzle, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2013. "Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 311-322.
    9. Cooper, Philip & Poe, Gregory L. & Bateman, Ian J., 2004. "The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-82, September.
    10. Ek, Kristina, 2005. "Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(13), pages 1677-1689, September.
    11. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2005. "Effect of Experimental Design on Choice-Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(3), pages 771-785.
    13. William Breffle & Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher, 2011. "A Joint Latent-Class Model: Combining Likert-Scale Preference Statements With Choice Data to Harvest Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, September.
    14. Carlo Andrea Bollino, 2009. "The Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Sources: The Case of Italy with Socio-demographic Determinants," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 81-96.
    15. 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.
    16. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    17. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    18. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June.
    19. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    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:eee:soceco:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:61-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-70.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Demand and Price Analysis; Environmental Economics and Policy; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:nzar14:188376. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nzareea.html .

    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.