Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 405–429 | Cite as

Willingness to Pay for Voluntary Climate Action and Its Determinants: Field-Experimental Evidence

Article

Abstract

The determinants of individual, voluntary climate action (VCA) in combating climate change and its potential scale are frequently debated in public but largely underresearched. We provide estimates of the willingness to individually reduce EU greenhouse gas emissions by one ton, using the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Estimates are derived from an online field experiment with a large, highly heterogenous, and Internet-representative sample of voting-aged Germans. Jointly estimating willingness to pay (WTP), non-indifference to VCA, and prior knowledge, we uncover important determinants of preferences for VCA, such as education, the information structure among the population, and exogenous environmental conditions.

Keywords

Climate change EU ETS Field experiment Online experiment  Public goods Voluntary contributions Voluntary climate action Willingness to pay 

Abbreviations

CC

Climate change

CCP

Collective climate policies

CO\(_{2}\)

Carbon dioxide

DWD

German National Meteorological Service

EUA

EU emissions allowance

EU-ETS

European Union Emissions Trading Scheme

FPC

Field price censoring

GHG

Greenhouse gas

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

VCA

Voluntary climate action

WTP

Willingness to pay

WTA

Willingness to accept

JEL Classifications

C93 Q51 Q54 

References

  1. Abdellaoui M, Baillon A, Placido L, Wakker PP (2011) The rich domain of uncertainty: source functions and their experimental implementation. Am Econ Rev 101:695–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akter S, Bennett J (2011) Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia. Clim Change 109(3–4):417–436Google Scholar
  3. An Y, Ayala RA (1996) A mixture model of willingess to pay distributions. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow KJ, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Technical report. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltussen G, Post T, Van den Assem MJ, Wakker PP (2010) Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  6. Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Weimer DL (2004) Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples. J Environ Econ Manag 47(2):331–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyle KJ, Welsh MP, Bishop RC (1988) Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: comment. Land Econ 64(1):94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brouwer R, Brander L, Van Beukering P (2008) “A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Clim Change 90(3):299–313Google Scholar
  9. Bulte E, Gerking S, List JA, de Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manag 49(2):330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai B, Cameron T, Gerdes G (2010) Distributional preferences and the incidence of costs and benefits in climate change policy. Environ Resour Econ 46(4):429–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manag 15(3):355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cameron TA, Englin J (1997) Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33(3):296–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. J Environ Econ Manag 41(2):179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlsson F, Kataria M, Krupnick A, Lampi E, Lofgren A, Qin P, Chung S, Sterner T (2010) Paying for mitigation: a multiple country study. Resources for the future, discussion papersGoogle Scholar
  15. Carson RT, Wilks L, Imber D (1994) Valuing the preservation of Australia’s Kakadu conservation zone. Oxf Econ Pap 46:727–749Google Scholar
  16. Cherry T, Frykblom P, Shogren J, List J, Sullivan M (2004) Laboratory testbeds and non-market valuation: the case of bidding behavior in a second-price auction with an outside option. Environ Resour Econ 29(3):285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cummings RG, Harrison GW, Rutström EE (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? Am Econ Rev 85(1):260–266Google Scholar
  18. Diederich J, Goeschl T (2011a) Giving in a large economy: price vs. non-price effects in a field experiment, Discussion paper no. 514. Department of Economics, Heidelberg UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. Diederich J, Goeschl T (2011b) Willingness to pay for individual greenhouse gas emissions reductions: evidence from a large field experiment, Discussion paper no 517. Department of Economics, Heidelberg UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission (2011) You control climate change. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/campaign/index.htm [Accessed September 23, 2011]
  21. Gore A, Guggenheim D (2006) An inconvenient truth: a global warning. Paramount pictures, Documentary movieGoogle Scholar
  22. Green DP (1992) The price elasticity of mass preferences. Am Political Sci Rev 86(1):128–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grether DM, Plott CR (1979) Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Am Econ Rev 69(4):623–638Google Scholar
  24. Haab TC (1999) Nonparticipation or misspecification? The impacts of nonparticipation on dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14(4):443–461Google Scholar
  25. Haab TC (1995) The impact of nonparticipants on nonmarket valuation techniques, PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
  26. Haab TC, McConnell KE (1997) Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manag 32(2):251–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanemann WM (1999) The economic theory of WTP and WTA. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 42–96Google Scholar
  29. Hanemann WM, Kanninen B (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data, chapter 11. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanemann WM, Kriström B (1995) Preference uncertainty, optimal designs and spikes. In: Johansson P-O, Kriström B, Mäler K-G (eds) Current issues in environmental economics. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 58–77Google Scholar
  31. Harrison GW (2006) Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environ Resour Econ 34(1):125–162Google Scholar
  32. Harrison GW (2007) House money effects in public good experiments: comment. Exp Econ 10(4):429–437Google Scholar
  33. Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field experiments. J Econ Lit 42(4):1009–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harrison GW, Rutström EE (2008) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In: Plott C, Smith V (eds) Handbook of experimental economics results, vol 1. North Holland, Amsterdam, chapter 81, pp 752–767Google Scholar
  35. Harrison GW, Harstad RM, Rutström EE (2004) Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Exp Econ 7(2):123–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson E, Nemet GF (2010) Willingness to pay for climate policy: a review of estimates, La Follette school working paper no 2010–011. La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-MadisonGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaczan D, MacDonald DH, Morrison M, Hatfield-Dodds S (2010) n.d., Willingness to pay to reduce the risk of severe climate change: evidence from Australia, Working paper. Reviewed in Johnson and NemetGoogle Scholar
  38. Keeler JP, James WL, Abdel-Ghany M (1985) The relative size of windfall income and the permanent income hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 3(3):209–215Google Scholar
  39. Konow J (2003) Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. J Econ Lit 41(4):1188–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kotchen MJ (2009) Voluntary provision of public goods for bads: a theory of environmental offsets. Econ J 119(537):883–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79(3):1013–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee J (2008) The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model. J Risk Uncertain 36(1):19–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee J-S, Yoo S-H, Kwak S-J (2010) Public’s willingness to pay for preventing climate change. Appl Econ Lett 17(4–6):619–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. List JA (2004) Young, selfish and male: field evidence of social preferences. Econ J 114(492):121–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon N (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change 77(1):73–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Change 17(3–4):445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Löschel A, Sturm B, Vogt C (2013) The demand for climate protection—empirical evidence from Germany. Econ Lett 118(3):415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lusk JL, Hudson D (2004) Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Rev Agricu Econ 26(2):152–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacKerron GJ, Egerton C, Gaskell C, Parpia A, Mourato S (2009) Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high) flying young adults in the UK. Energy Policy 37(4):1372–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agric Econ 76(4):689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Munro A, Hanley N (1999) Information, uncertainty, and contingent valuation. In: Bateman I, Willis KG, Arrow KJ (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, chapter 9, pp 258–279Google Scholar
  52. Nordhaus WD (1993) Reflections on the economics of climate change. J Econ Perspect 7(4):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pachauri R (2007) Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP), opening ceremony 12 December 2007, WMO/UNEP intergovernmental panel on climate change, Video presentation. Available at: http://www.un.org/webcast/unfccc/2007/index.asp [Accessed September 23, 2011]
  54. Shogren JF (2006) Experimental methods and valuation. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Valuing environmental changes, vol 2 of Handbook of environmental economics, Elsevier, pp 969–1027Google Scholar
  55. Sinn HW (2008) Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. Int Tax Public Financ 15(4):360–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Solomon BD, Johnson NH (2009) Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol. Ecol Econ 68(7):2137–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Starmer C, Sugden R (1991) Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. Am Econ Rev 81(4):971–978Google Scholar
  58. Sterman J, Sweeney L (2007) Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Clim Change 80(3):213–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thaler RH, Johnson EJ (1990) Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Manag Sci 36(6):643–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tol RSJ (1999) The marginal costs of greenhouse gas emissions. Energy J 20(1):61–81Google Scholar
  61. Tol RSJ (2009) The economic effects of climate change. J Econ Perspect 23(2):29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tol RSJ (2010) The economic impact of climate change. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 11:13–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Turnbull BW (1976) The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodological) 38(3):290–295Google Scholar
  64. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ungar S (2000) Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole. Public Underst Sci 9(3):297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Viscusi W, Zeckhauser R (2006) The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Clim Change 77(1):151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Werner M (1999) Allowing for zeros in dichotomous-choice contingent-valuation models. J Bus Econ Stat 17(4):479–486Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations