Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques

Energy Economics

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 363-370

  Grösche, Peter ^a   Schröder, Carsten ^b  

^a RWI LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Green electricity; Policy evaluation; Preference heterogeneity; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ELECTRICITY MIXES; FUEL MIX; GERMAN GOVERNMENT; GREEN ELECTRICITY; HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS; POLICY EVALUATION; PREFERENCE HETEROGENEITY; PUBLIC SUPPORT; RANDOM PARAMETERS; RENEWABLE FUELS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ELECTRICITY; FUELS; SURVEYS;

ELECTRIC GENERATORS;

ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ESTIMATION METHOD; FOSSIL FUEL; HETEROGENEITY; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

GERMANY;

EID: 79151481298     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Ajzen I., Brown T.C., Rosenthal L.H. Information bias in contingency valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, Vol. 30:43-57.
2. Alberini A., Zanatta V., Rosato P. Combining actual and contingent behavior to estimate the value of sports fishing in the lagoon of Venice. Ecological Economics 2007, Vol. 61:530-541.
3. Alesina A., Fuchs-Schündeln N. Good bye Lenin (or not?): the effect of communism on people's preferences. The American Economic Review 2007, Vol. 97:1507-1528.
4. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H. Budget constraint, temporal and ordering effects in contingent valuation studies. Environmental Planning A 1997, Vol. 29:1215-1228.
5. Batley S.L., Colbourne D., Fleming P.D., Urwin P. Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market. Energy Policy 2001, Vol. 29:479-487.
6. Bergmann A., Hanley N., Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investment. Energy Policy 2006, Vol. 34:1004-1014.
7. Bertrand M., Mullainathan S. Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data. The American Economic Review - Papers and Proceedings 2001, Vol. 91:67-72.
8. BMU Erfahrungsbericht 2007 zum Erneuerbaren-Energien-Gesetz. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 2007, November 2007 Berlin.
9. BMU Aktualisierung von Kapitel 13 (Besondere Ausgleichsregelung - $ 16 EEG) des EEG-Erfahrungsberichts vom 07.11. 2007. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 2008, April 2008, Berlin.
10. BMWi Energie in Deutschland: Trends und Hintergründe zur Energieversorgung in Deutschland. Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology 2010, August 2010, Berlin.
11. Bollino C.A. The willingness to pay for renewable energy sources: the case of italy with socio-demographic determinants. The Energy Journal 2009, Vol. 30:81-96.
12. Boyle K.J., Welsh M.P., Bishop R.C. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1993, Vol. 25:80-99.
13. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Martin K.M., Wright J.L. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 1996, Vol. 72:80-99.
14. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental & Resource Economics 2001, Vol. 19:383-402.
15. Clark J., Friesen L. The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: an experimental investigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2008, Vol. 56:195-206.
16. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review 1999, Vol. 89:649-666.
17. Cuzick J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Statistics in Medicine 1985, Vol. 4:87-90.
18. Diamond P.A. Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, Vol. 30:337-347.
19. Diamond P.A., Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, Vol. 8:45-64.
20. Eikeland P.O. Electricity market liberalization and environment performance: Norway and the UK. Energy Policy 1998, Vol. 26:917-927.
21. Fouquet R. The United Kingdom demand for renewable electricity in a liberalized market. Energy Policy 1998, Vol. 26:281-293.
22. Frew E.J., Whynes D.K., Wolstenholme J.L. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Medical Decision Making 2003, Vol. 23:150-159.
23. Goett A.A., Hudson K., Train K.E. Customers' choice among retail energy suppliers: the willingness-to-pay for service attributes. The Energy Journal 2000, Vol. 21:1-28.
24. Halstead J., Luloff A., Stevens T.H. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeast Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1992, Vol. 21:160-169.
25. Hanemann W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, Vol. 8:19-43.
26. Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handbook of experimental economics results 2008, vol.1:752-767.
27. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 1966, Vol. 74:132-157.
28. List J.A. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auction experiments. The American Economic Review 2001, Vol. 91:1498-1507.
29. Loomis J., Brown T., Lucero B., Peterson G. Evaluating the validity of the dichotomous choice question format in contingent valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics 1997, Vol. 10:109-123.
30. Menegaki A. Valuation for renewable energy: a comparative review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 2008, Vol. 12:2422-2437.
31. Menges R., Schröder C., Traub S. Altruism, warm glow and the willingness-to-donate for green electricity: an artefactual field experiment. Environmental & Resource Economics 2005, Vol. 31:431-458.
32. Merz J. Microdata adjustment by the minimum information loss principle. Forschungsinstitut Freie Berufe, Discussion Paper 1994, 10. University Leuphana at Lüneburg, Germany.
33. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics 2005, Vol. 30:313-325.
34. Neill H.R., Cummings R.G., Ganderton P.T., Harrison G.W., McGuckin T. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics 1994, Vol. 70:145-154.
35. Poe G.L., Clark J.E., Rondeau D., Schulze W.D. Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics 2002, Vol. 23:105-131.
36. Roe B., Teisl M.F., Levy A., Russel M. US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 2001, Vol. 29:917-925.
37. Scarpa R., Willis K. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies. Energy Economics 2010, Vol. 32:129-136.
38. Smith V.K., Osborne L.L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a 'scope' test. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, Vol. 31:287-301.
39. Wiser R. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics 2006, Vol. 62:419-432.
40. Zarnikau J. Consumer demand for 'green power' and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2003, Vol. 31:1661-1672.