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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Prudence Dato, 2018. "Investment in Energy Efficiency, Adoption of Renewable Energy and Household Behavior: Evidence from OECD Countries," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    12. Papineau, Maya, 2017. "Setting the standard? A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of building energy standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 63-76.
    13. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    14. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2005. "Individual option prices for climate change mitigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 283-301, February.
    15. Xiao-Hua Ying & Teh-Wei Hu & Jane Ren & Wen Chen & Ke Xu & Jin-Hui Huang, 2007. "Demand for private health insurance in Chinese urban areas," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1041-1050.
    16. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    17. Bethany Cooper & Michael Burton & Lin Crase, 2019. "Willingness to Pay to Avoid Water Restrictions in Australia Under a Changing Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 823-847, March.
    18. Fontecha, John E. & Nikolaev, Alexander & Walteros, Jose L. & Zhu, Zhenduo, 2022. "Scientists wanted? A literature review on incentive programs that promote pro-environmental consumer behavior: Energy, waste, and water," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    19. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Wiktor Adamowicz & David Bunch & Trudy Cameron & Benedict Dellaert & Michael Hanneman & Michael Keane & Jordan Louviere & Robert Meyer & Thomas Steenburgh & Joffre Swait, 2008. "Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 215-228, December.

    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.