Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 429–454 | Cite as

The Influence of Collective Action on the Demand for Voluntary Climate Change Mitigation in Hypothetical and Real Situations

  • Reinhard UehlekeEmail author
  • Bodo Sturm


In this experiment, we investigate demand for voluntary climate change mitigation. Subjects decide between a cash prize and an allowance from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme for one ton of \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) that will be deleted after the completion of the experiment. Decisions were implemented either as purely individual or as a collective action using majority voting. We vary the incentives of the decision situation in which we distinguish between real monetary incentives and a hypothetical decision situation with, and without, a cheap talk script. Collective decision making affects demand positively in the hypothetical decision situation only and we observe a significant hypothetical bias in the demand for voluntary climate change mitigation.


Demand for voluntary climate change mitigation Public goods Collective action Hypothetical bias 

JEL Classification

Q51 Q54 C93 



Financial support by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FairPayClim FKZ 01LA1108B) is gratefully acknowledged. We thank workshop participants at the ZEW Mannheim, Carlo Gallier and two anonymous referees for valuable comments.


  1. Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2003) Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. AJAE 85(2):492–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2006) Cheap talk reconsidered: new evidence from CVM. J Econ Behav Organ 60(4):562–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Achtnicht M (2012) German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) emissions. Clim Change 113(3):679–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008) Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Exp Econ 11(3):299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm glow giving. Econ J 100(401):464–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard M, Dreber A, Strimling P et al (2013) The subgroup problem: when can binding voting on extractions from a common pool resource overcome the tragedy of the commons? J Econ Behav Organ 91:122–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blasch J, Farsi M (2012) Retail demand for voluntary carbon—a choice experiment among Swiss consumers. IED working paper no. 18. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2145267
  8. Blumenschein K, Blomquist GC, Johannesson M et al (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ J 118(525):114–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brouwer R, Brander L, Van Beukering P (2008) “A convenient truth”: air travel passengers willingness to pay to offset their \(\text{ CO }_{2 }\)emissions. Clim Change 90(3):299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. JEEM 46(2):353–361Google Scholar
  11. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, Elsevier, pp 821–936Google Scholar
  12. Carson RT, Conaway MB, Hanemann WM et al (2004) Valuing oil spill prevention: a case study of California’s Central Coast. In: Bateman IJ (ed) The economics of non-market goods and resources, vol 5. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Champ PA, Moore R, Bishop RC (2009) A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias. ARER 38(2):166–180Google Scholar
  14. Cooper P, Gregory LP, Bateman IJ (2004) The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecol Econ 50(1–2):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crumpler H, Grossman PJ (2008) An experimental test of warm glow giving. J Public Econ 92(5–6):1011–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Cummings RG, Elliot S, Harrison GW et al (1997) Are hypothetical referenda incentive-compatible? J Polit Econ 105(3):609–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3):649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diederich J, Goeschl T (2014a) Willingness to pay for voluntary climate action and its determinants: field-experimental evidence. ERE 57(3):405–429Google Scholar
  20. Diederich J, Goeschl T (2014b) Motivational drivers of the private provision of public goods: evidence from a large framed field experiment. Discussion paper series/University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics 0561, urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-167229Google Scholar
  21. Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ Lett 71(3):397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2003) Valuing environmental and natural resources. The econometrics of non-market valuation. E, Elgar, Cheltenham, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauser OP, Rand DG, Peysakhovich A et al (2014) Cooperating with the future. Nature 511:220–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johansson-Stenman O, Svedsäter H (2012) Self-image and valuation of moral goods: stated versus actual willingness to pay. J Econ Behav Organ 84(3):879–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. JEEM 22(1):57–70Google Scholar
  26. Kang H, Haab TC, Interis MG (2013) Identifying inconsistent responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions. Resour Energy Econ 35(3):396–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koch N, Fuss S, Grosjean G et al (2014) Causes of the EU ETS price drop: recession, CDM, renewable policies or a bit of everything? New evidence. Energ Policy 73:676–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kosfeld M, Okada A, Riedl A (2009) Institution formation in public goods games. Am Econ Rev 99(4):1335–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kroll S, Cherry TL, Shogren JF (2007) Voting, punishment, and public goods. Econ Inq 45(3):557–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landry CE, List JA (2007) Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence from the field. Am J Agric Econ 89(2):420–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liebe U, Preisendörfer P, Meierhoff J (2011) To pay or not to pay: competing theories to explain individuals’ willingness to pay for public environmental goods. Environ Behav 43(1):106–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. List JA (2001) Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. Am Econ Rev 91(5):1498–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Long JS, Freese J (2014) Regression models for categorical dependent variables in Stata, 3rd edn. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  34. Löschel A, Sturm B, Vogt C (2013) The demand for climate change mitigation–an empirical assessment for Germany. Econ Lett 118:415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Löschel A, Sturm B, Uehleke R (2014) Revealed preferences for climate change mitigation when the purely individual perspective is relaxed—evidence from a framed field experiment. ZEW discussion paper no. 13-006, Mannheim. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2217489
  36. MacKerron GJ, Egerton C, Gaskell C et al (2009) Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in UK. Energy Policy 37(4):1372–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Margreiter M, Sutter M, Dittrich D (2005) Individual and collective choice and voting in common pool resource problem with heterogeneous actors. ERE 32(2):241–271Google Scholar
  38. Mjelde JW, Jin YH, Lee C et al (2012) Development of a bias ratio to examine factors influencing hypothetical bias. J Environ Manag 95(1):39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morrison M, Brown TC (2009) Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. ERE 44(3):307–326Google Scholar
  40. Moser R, Raffaelli R, Notaro S (2014) Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents’ own money. Eur Rev Agric Econ 41(1):25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mozumder P, Berrens RP (2011) Social context, financial stakes and hypothetical bias: an induced value referendum experiment. Appl Econ 43(29):4487–4499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH et al (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. ERE 30(3):313–325Google Scholar
  43. Norton EC, Wang H, Ai C (2004) Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. Stata J 4(2):154–167Google Scholar
  44. Plott CR, Zeiler K (2011) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the endowment effect, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: reply. Am Econ Rev 101(2):1012–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spash CL (2006) Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Econ 82(4):602–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sugden R (1984) Reciprocity: the supply of public goods through voluntary contributions. Econ J 94(376):772–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steg L, van den Berg AE, De Groot JIM (2013) Environmental psychology. An introduction, Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  48. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2005) Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J Environ Psychol 25(4):415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T et al (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6(2):81–97Google Scholar
  50. Veronesi M, Alberini A, Cooper JC (2011) Implications of bid design and willingness-to-pay distribution for starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. ERE 49(2):199–215Google Scholar
  51. Walker J, Gardner R, Herr A et al (2000) Collective choice in the commons: experimental results on proposed allocation rules and votes. Econ J 110(460):212–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business AdministrationLeipzig University of Applied Science (HTWK)LeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations