IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/10068.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The demand for climate protection: An empirical assessment for Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Löschel, Andreas
  • Sturm, Bodo
  • Vogt, Carsten

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the real demand for climate protection. For this purpose we conducted a framed field experiment with a sample of the residential population in Mannheim, Germany. Participants were endowed with € 40 and given the opportunity to contribute to climate protection by purchasing European Union Allowances. Purchased allowances were withdrawn from the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). While the median willingness to pay (WTP) for climate protection is zero the mean WTP is approximately € 12/tCO2. We analyse determinants of the observed individual demand behaviour and discuss the potential consequences, which result from the remarkably low WTP and its distribution for German climate policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Löschel, Andreas & Sturm, Bodo & Vogt, Carsten, 2010. "The demand for climate protection: An empirical assessment for Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-068, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:10068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/41436/1/637443292.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Fox & Jayson Lusk, 2003. "Value elicitation in laboratory and retail environments," Framed Field Experiments 00185, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Bohringer, Christoph & Vogt, Carsten, 2004. "The dismantling of a breakthrough: the Kyoto Protocol as symbolic policy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 597-617, September.
    3. Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2003. "Value elicitation in retail and laboratory environments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 27-34, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Fouquet, Roger, 2012. "The demand for environmental quality in driving transitions to low-polluting energy sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 138-149.
    3. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett & Michael B. Ward, 2013. "Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: evidence from an Australian choice experiment," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-47, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    4. Löschel, Andreas & Sturm, Bodo & Vogt, Carsten, 2013. "The demand for climate protection—Empirical evidence from Germany," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 415-418.
    5. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Individual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: Evidence from a Large Field Experiment," Working Papers 0517, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    6. Blasch, Julia & Farsi, Mehdi, 2012. "Retail demand for voluntary carbon offsets – a choice experiment among Swiss consumers," MPRA Paper 41259, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Alberini, Anna & Bigano, Andrea & Ščasný, Milan & Zvěřinová, Iva, 2016. "Preferences for Energy Efficiency vs. Renewables: How Much Does a Ton of CO2 Emissions Cost?," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 249352, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. Shewmake, Sharon & Okrent, Abigail M. & Thabrew, Lanka & Vandenbergh, Michael, 2012. "Carbon Labeling for Consumer Food Goods," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124369, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Vladimir Udalov & Paul J. J. Welfens, 2021. "Digital and competing information sources: Impact on environmental concern and prospects for international policy cooperation," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 631-660, October.

    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. Barlagne, Carla & Bazoche, Pascale & Thomas, Alban & Ozier-Lafontaine, Harry & Causeret, François & Blazy, Jean-Marc, 2015. "Promoting local foods in small island states: The role of information policies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 62-72.
    2. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    4. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Colson, Gregory, 2009. "Improving nutrient content through genetic modification: Evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for intragenic foods," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001872, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Skuza, Nathan & McCracken, Vicki & Ellis, Joan, 2015. "Compensation Fees And Willingness To Pay: A Field Experiment On Organic Apples," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 3(3), pages 1-13, July.
    9. Spaulding, Aslihan D. & Wiegand, Bryon R. & O'Rourke, Patrick D., 2006. "Consumer Knowledge and Perceptions of Food Irradiation: Ground Beef Study," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 37(1), pages 1-7, March.
    10. Andres Silva & Rodolfo Nayga & Benjamin Campbell & John Park, 2012. "Can perceived task complexity influence cheap talk's effectiveness in reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice studies?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(17), pages 1711-1714.
    11. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Froehlich, Eve J. & Carlberg, Jared G., 2007. "Comparing Willingness-to-Pay Estimates from Experimental Auctions with Mailed Surveys Incorporating Cheap Talk," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34945, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Jaqueline Garcia-Yi, 2014. "Market-Based Instruments for the Conservation of Underutilized Crops: In-Store Experimental Auction of Native Chili Products in Bolivia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-19, November.
    14. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2004. "Willingness To Pay For Non-Genetically Modified Food: Evidence Of Hypothetical Bias From An Auction Experiment In Japan," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20305, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Britwum, Kofi & Bernard, John C., 2018. "A field experiment on consumer willingness to accept milk that may have come from cloned cows," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-8.
    16. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    17. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2009. "Demand Curve Effects in Experimental Auctions: The Effect of Quantity Already Owned," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49551, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Jutta Roosen & Stephan Marette & Sandrine Blanchemanche, 2010. "Value Elicitation using BDM and a Discrete Choice Mechanism," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1554-1563.
    19. Yoann Graciot & Sandrine Costa & Danièle Scandella & Lucie Sirieix, 2015. "Consentement à payer pour des pêches conventionnelles et biologiques : n'y a-t-il que le physique qui compte ?," Post-Print hal-01499039, HAL.
    20. Grebitus, Carola & Jensen, Helen H. & Roosen, Jutta, 2013. "US and German consumer preferences for ground beef packaged under a modified atmosphere – Different regulations, different behaviour?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 109-118.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    experimental economics; demand for climate protection; climate change; willingness to pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Technology Assessment

    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:zewdip:10068. 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/zemande.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.