IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/rwirep/742.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does financial compensation increase the acceptance of power lines? Evidence from Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Simora, Michael
  • Frondel, Manuel
  • Vance, Colin

Abstract

Although public support for renewable energy promotion in Germany is strong, the required power line construction has incited a groundswell of opposition from residents concerned about the impacts on their neighborhoods. This paper evaluates a large randomized one-shot binary-choice experiment to examine the effect of different compensation schemes on the acceptance of new power line construction. Results reveal that community compensations have no bearing on the acceptance level, whereas personal compensations have a negative effect. Two possible channels through which financial compensation reduces the willingness-to-accept are (1) crowding out of intrinsic motivation to support the construction project and (2) a signaling effect that alerts residents to potential negative impacts of the power lines. Both explanations call into question the efficacy of financial payments to decrease local opposition.

Suggested Citation

  • Simora, Michael & Frondel, Manuel & Vance, Colin, 2018. "Does financial compensation increase the acceptance of power lines? Evidence from Germany," Ruhr Economic Papers 742, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:rwirep:742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/174360/1/1012771679.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jobert, Arthur & Laborgne, Pia & Mimler, Solveig, 2007. "Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2751-2760, May.
    2. Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, 1997. "The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-Out," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 746-755, September.
    3. Rode, Julian & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Krause, Torsten, 2015. "Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 270-282.
    4. Vance, Colin & Ritter, Nolan, 2012. "The Phantom Menace of Omitted Variables. A Comment," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 233-238.
    5. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
    6. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    7. Eltham, Douglas C. & Harrison, Gareth P. & Allen, Simon J., 2008. "Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 23-33, January.
    8. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Kerr, John & Vardhan, Mamta & Jindal, Rohit, 2012. "Prosocial behavior and incentives: Evidence from field experiments in rural Mexico and Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 220-227.
    10. Carl Mellström & Magnus Johannesson, 2008. "Crowding Out in Blood Donation: Was Titmuss Right?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(4), pages 845-863, June.
    11. Taylor, Laura O. & McKee, Michael & Laury, Susan K. & Cummings, Ronald G., 2001. "Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 61-65, April.
    12. Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
    13. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    14. Greene, William, 2010. "Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 291-296, May.
    15. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    16. Ciupuliga, A.R. & Cuppen, E., 2013. "The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission lines: the case of a France–Spain interconnection project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 224-233.
    17. Nape, Steven & Frykblom, Peter & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lesley, James C., 2003. "Hypothetical bias and willingness to accept," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 423-430, March.
    18. Upham, Paul & García Pérez, Jesús, 2015. "A cognitive mapping approach to understanding public objection to energy infrastructure: The case of wind power in Galicia, Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 587-596.
    19. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    20. repec:aen:journl:ej38-si1-frondel is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Jed Cohen, Klaus Moeltner, Johannes Reichl and Michael Schmidthaler, 2016. "An Empirical Analysis of Local Opposition to New Transmission Lines Across the EU-27," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    22. 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.
    23. Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000. "Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 791-810.
    24. Baxter, Jamie & Morzaria, Rakhee & Hirsch, Rachel, 2013. "A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 931-943.
    25. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    26. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2017. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 777-796, November.
    27. Krohn, Søren & Damborg, Steffen, 1999. "On public attitudes towards wind power," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 954-960.
    28. Wenche Tobiasson & Christina Beestermöller & Tooraj Jamasb, 2016. "Public engagement in electricity network development: the case of the Beauly–Denny project in Scotland," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(2), pages 105-126, June.
    29. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    30. S. Bowles & S. Polania-Reyes., 2013. "Economic Incentives and Social Preferences: Substitutes or Complements?," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 4.
    31. Frey, Bruno S & Jegen, Reto, 2001. " Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
    32. 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.
    33. Sally Sims & Peter Dent & G. Reza Oskrochi, 2008. "Modelling the impact of wind farms on house prices in the UK," International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 251-269, August.
    34. Jack, B. Kelsey, 2009. "Upstream-downstream transactions and watershed externalities: Experimental evidence from Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1813-1824, April.
    35. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    36. Colin Vance & Nolan Ritter, 2012. "The Phantom Menace of Omitted Variables," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 233-238, April.
    37. Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13.
    38. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2013. "Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(8), pages 1225-1245, October.
    39. Mark A. Andor, Manuel Frondel, and Colin Vance, 2017. "Germanys Energiewende: A Tale of Increasing Costs and Decreasing Willingness-To-Pay," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(KAPSARC S).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    not-in-my-backyard; willingness to accept; motivation crowding out; randomized discrete choice experiment;

    JEL classification:

    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General

    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:742. 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: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/rwiesde.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.