IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/rwirep/331884.html

Beyond the single binary choice format for eliciting willingness to accept: Evidence from a field study on onshore wind farms

Author

Listed:
  • Fanghella, Valeria
  • Fezzi, Carlo
  • Schleich, Joachim
  • Sebi, Carine

Abstract

This study assesses the incentive compatibility of different elicitation formats for estimating willingness to accept (WTA) in the field. We assess the convergent validity of standard and theorydriven (i.e. based on mechanism-design theory) versions of the double-bounded binary choice (DB) and the open-ended (OE) formats against the single-binary choice (SBC). Our empirical application, developed in collaboration with a major energy company, is based on estimating compensation for the installation of wind farms in respondents' municipalities of residence. We find strong evidence against convergent validity for both versions of the OE format. In comparison, both versions of the DB format, especially the theory-driven version, yield WTA estimates similar to those of the SBC, ranging from near zero for supporters of wind power to €1500-€1800 for opponents. Finally, we introduce a novel econometric approach that allows the utility of compensation to be non-linear when estimating WTA (and WTP) from binary choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Fanghella, Valeria & Fezzi, Carlo & Schleich, Joachim & Sebi, Carine, 2025. "Beyond the single binary choice format for eliciting willingness to accept: Evidence from a field study on onshore wind farms," Ruhr Economic Papers 1184, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:rwirep:331884
    DOI: 10.4419/96973369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/331884/1/1941523951.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4419/96973369?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bateman, Ian J. & Willis, Kenneth G. (ed.), 2001. "Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU , and developing Countries," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199248919.
    2. Alberini, Anna & Bigano, Andrea, 2015. "How effective are energy-efficiency incentive programs? Evidence from Italian homeowners," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 76-85.
    3. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    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. Christian A. Vossler & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Toward a better understanding of elicitation effects in stated preference studies," Working Papers 2018-01, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    2. Nishijima, Daisuke, 2017. "The role of technology, product lifetime, and energy efficiency in climate mitigation: A case study of air conditioners in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 340-347.
    3. Alhassan, Mustapha & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Schoengold, Karina, "undated". "Effects of Information Framing on Smallholder Irrigation Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Groundwater Protection: The Case of Vea Irrigation Scheme in Ghana," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. de Miguel, Carlos & Labandeira, Xavier & Löschel, Andreas, 2015. "Frontiers in the economics of energy efficiency," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 1-4.
    5. Railey, Ashley F. & Marsh, Thomas L., "undated". "Diagnostic Testing and Vaccine Matching: FMD in Tanzania," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258386, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Hui Li & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Carol L. Silva & David L. Weimer, 2005. "Exploring the Beta Model Using Proportional Budget Information in a Contingent Valuation Study," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(8), pages 1-9.
    7. Canelli, Rosa & Fontana, Giuseppe & Realfonzo, Riccardo & Passarella, Marco Veronese, 2024. "Energy crisis, economic growth and public finance in Italy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    8. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhan, Yanhong & Du, Gang, 2020. "Can value-added tax incentives of new energy industry increase firm's profitability? Evidence from financial data of China's listed companies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    9. Lamiraud, Karine & von Bremen, Konrade & Donaldson, Cam, 2009. "The impact of information on patient preferences in different delivery patterns: A contingent valuation study of prescription versus OTC drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 102-110, December.
    10. Yushchenko, Alisa & Patel, Martin Kumar, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs: How to better understand and improve from multiple stakeholder perspectives?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 538-550.
    11. Stefan Eriksson & Per Johansson & Sophie Langenskiöld, 2017. "What is the right profile for getting a job? A stated choice experiment of the recruitment process," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 803-826, September.
    12. Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2006. "Should We Trust Hypothetical Referenda? Test and Identification Problems," Working Papers in Economics 189, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised 24 Jan 2006.
    13. de Koning, Koen & Filatova, Tatiana & Bin, Okmyung, 2017. "Bridging the Gap Between Revealed and Stated Preferences in Flood-prone Housing Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.
    14. Tu, Gengyang & Faure, Corinne & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte, 2021. "The heat is off! The role of technology attributes and individual attitudes in the diffusion of Smart thermostats – findings from a multi-country survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    15. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    17. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    18. Du, Minzhe & Wang, Bing & Zhang, Ning, 2018. "National research funding and energy efficiency: Evidence from the National Science Foundation of China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 335-346.
    19. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan & Bigano, Andrea, 2018. "Policy- v. individual heterogeneity in the benefits of climate change mitigation: Evidence from a stated-preference survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 565-575.
    20. Prudence Dato, 2018. "Investment in Energy Efficiency, Adoption of Renewable Energy and Household Behavior: Evidence from OECD Countries," The Energy Journal, , vol. 39(3), pages 213-244, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:zbw:rwirep:331884. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rwiesde.html .

    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.