Advertisement

Private Ancillary Benefits in a Joint Production Framework

  • Claudia SchwirpliesEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Climate book series (SPCL)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on private ancillary benefits from climate protection activities and their potential to work as motivating factors for individuals and their climate-friendly activities and support of climate policies. In contrast to the primary benefits on the climate, private ancillary benefits appear to be more attractive to the individual as they directly increase their utility in the short run and are associated with less uncertainty. We discuss existing empirical literature on financial advantages, internal satisfaction, health benefits, and fairness as secondary benefits. We do not come to a clear conclusion and recommendation whether actors from the public and private sector should lay more emphasis on the secondary private benefits when promoting climate protection measures. Empirical evidence is either scarce or mixed or both, such that the chapter points out future research needs in this respect.

References

  1. Ajzen I, Rosenthal LH, Brown TC (2000) Effects of perceived fairness on willingness to pay. J Appl Social Pyschol 30(12):2439–2450.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02444.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akter S, Brouwer R, Brander L, van Beukering P (2009) Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets. Ecol Econ 68(6):1858–1863.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andor MA, Frondel M, Sommer S (2018) Equity and the willingness to pay for green electricity in Germany. Nat Energy 3(10):876–881.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0233-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreoni J (1995) Cooperation in public-goods experiments: kindness or confusion? Am Econ Rev 85(4):891–904.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2118238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anik L, Norton MI, Ariely D (2014) Contingent match incentives increase donations. J Market Res 51(6):790–801.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Araghi Y, Kroesen M, Molin E, van Wee B (2014) Do social norms regarding carbon offsetting affect individual preferences towards this policy? Results from a stated choice experiment. Transport Res D Transport Environ 26(0):42–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ariely D, Bracha A, Meier S (2009) Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. Am Econ Rev 99(1):544–555.  https://doi.org/10.2307/29730196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bain PG, Milfont TL, Kashima Y, Bilewicz M, Doron G, Garðarsdóttir RB, Gouveia VV, Guan Y, Johansson L-O, Pasquali C, Corral-Verdugo V, Aragones JI, Utsugi A, Demarque C, Otto S, Park J, Soland M, Steg L, González R, Lebedeva N, Madsen OJ, Wagner C, Akotia CS, Kurz T, Saiz JL, Schultz PW, Einarsdóttir G, Saviolidis NM (2015) Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat Clim Change 6:154–157.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernauer T, McGrath LF (2016) Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Change 6:680.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blasch J (2015) Doing good or undoing harm—doing good or undoing harm—framing voluntary contributions to climate change mitigation. Conference paper presented at the EAERE 2015Google Scholar
  11. Blasch J, Farsi M (2014) Context effects and heterogeneity in voluntary carbon offsetting—a choice experiment in Switzerland. J Environ Econ Policy 3(1):1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2013.842938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. BMUB (2016) Bundesregierung wirbt für nachhaltigen Konsum: Nationales Programm verabschiedet. http://www.bmub.bund.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/pm/artikel/bundesregierung-wirbt-fuer-nachhaltigen-konsum/. Accessed 13 Dec 2016
  13. Bó PD, Foster A, Putterman L (2010) Institutions and behavior: experimental evidence on the effects of democracy. Am Econ Rev 100(5):2205–2229.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.5.2205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bohnet I, Frey BS, Huck S (2001) More order with less law: on contract enforcement, trust, and crowding. Am Polit Sci Rev 95(01):131–144.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401000211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bolderdijk JW, Steg L, Geller ES, Lehman PK, Postmes T (2012) Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat Clim Change 3:413.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am Econ Rev 90(1):166–193.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.1.166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bothner F, Dorner F, Herrmann A, Fischer H, Sauerborn R (2019) Explaining climate policies’ popularity—an empirical study in four European countries. Environ Sci Policy 92:34–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brekke KA, Kverndokk S, Nyborg K (2003) An economic model of moral motivation. J Public Econ 87(9–10):1967–1983.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00222-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brouwer R, Brander L, Beukering P (2008) “A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Clim Change 90(3):299–313.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9414-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cai B, Cameron TA, Gerdes GR (2010) Distributional preferences and the incidence of costs and benefits in climate change policy. Environ Resour Econ 46(4):429–458.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9348-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carlsson F, Daruvala D, Johansson-Stenman O (2005) Are people inequality-averse, or just risk-averse? Economica 72(287):375–396.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0427.2005.00421.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carlsson F, Kataria M, Krupnick A, Lampi E, Löfgren Å, Qin P, Sterner T (2013) A fair share: burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China. Resour Energy Econ 35(1):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cary JW, Wilkinson RL (1997) Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. J Agric Econ 48(1-3):13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1997.tb01127.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clark CF, Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. J Environ Psychol 23(3):237–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00105-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crumpler H, Grossman PJ (2008) An experimental test of warm glow giving. J Public Econ 92(5–6):1011–1021.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008) Forecasting risk attitudes: an experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. J Econ Behav Organ 68(1):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans L, Maio GR, Corner A, Hodgetts CJ, Ahmed S, Hahn U (2012) Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nat Clim Change 3:122.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q J Econ 114(3):817–868.  https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ Lett 71(3):397–404.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frey BS, Oberholzer-Gee F (1997) The cost of price incentives: an empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. Am Econ Rev 87(4):746–755Google Scholar
  31. Glazer A, Konrad KA (1996) A signaling explanation for charity. Am Econ Rev 86(4):1019–1028Google Scholar
  32. Harbaugh WT (1998) What do donations buy?: a model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow. J Public Econ 67(2):269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holländer H (1990) A social exchange approach to voluntary cooperation. Am Econ Rev 80(5):1157–1167Google Scholar
  34. IPCC (2001) Climate change: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson LT (2006) Distributional preferences in contingent valuation surveys. Ecol Econ 56(4):475–487.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaenzig J, Heinzle SL, Wüstenhagen R (2013) Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany. Energy Policy 53:311–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karlan D, List JA (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Am Econ Rev 97(5):1774–1793.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.5.1774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kesternich M, Löschel A, Römer D (2016) The long-term impact of matching and rebate subsidies when public goods are impure: field experimental evidence from the carbon offsetting market. J Public Econ 137:70–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kotchen MJ (2006) Green markets and private provision of public goods. J Polit Econ 114(4):816–834.  https://doi.org/10.1086/506337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lange A, Schwirplies C (2019) Private contributions and the regional scope of charities: how donation experiments can inform public policy. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  41. Lange A, Ziegler A (2015) Offsetting versus mitigation activities to reduce CO2 emissions: a theoretical and empirical analysis for the U.S. and Germany. Environ Resour Econ 66(1):113–133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9944-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lange A, Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2017) On the interrelation between carbon offsetting and other voluntary pro-environmental activities: theory and empirical evidence. Resour Energy Econ 47:72–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. List JA (2011) The market for charitable giving. J Econ Perspect 25(2):157–180.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.2.157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. List JA, Price MK (2012) Charitable giving around the world: thoughts on how to expand the pie. CESifo Econ Stud 58(1):1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifr023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Longo A, Hoyos D, Markandya A (2012) Willingness to pay for ancillary benefits of climate change mitigation. Environ Resour Econ 51(1):119–140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9491-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayer H, Flachmann C (2016) Umweltökonomische Gesamtrechnungen: Direkte und indirekte CO2-Emissionen in Deutschland 2005–2012. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/UmweltoekonomischeGesamtrechnungen/CO2EmissionenPDF_5851305.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2016
  47. Meier S (2007) Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in the field. J Eur Econ Assoc 5(6):1203–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Menges R, Schroeder C, Traub S (2005) Altruism, warm glow and the willingness-to-donate for green electricity: an artefactual field experiment. Environ Resour Econ 31(4):431–458.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3365-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miao L, Wei W (2013) Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations: a comparison between household and hotel settings. Int J Hospit Manag 32:102–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nyborg K, Rege M (2003) Does public policy crowd out private contributions to public goods. Public Choice 115(3–4):397–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nyborg K, Howarth RB, Brekke KA (2006) Green consumers and public policy: on socially contingent moral motivation. Resour Energy Econ 28(4):351–366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2006.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perino G, Schwirplies C (2019) Meaty arguments and fishy associations: field experimental evidence on the impact of reasons to reduce meat consumption on intentions, behavior and satisfaction. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  53. Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 68(1–2):210–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rege M (2004) Social norms and private provision of public goods. J Public Econ Theory 6(1):65–77.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2004.00157.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rondeau D, List JA (2008) Matching and challenge gifts to charity: evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments. Exp Econ 11(3):253–267.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9190-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rübbelke DTG (2002) International climate policy to combat global warming: an analysis of the ancillary benefits of reducing carbon emissions. Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  57. Rübbelke DTG (2011) International support of climate change policies in developing countries: strategic, moral and fairness aspects. Ecol Econ 70(8):1470–1480.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schleich J, Dütschke E, Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2016) Citizens’ perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis. Clim Policy 16(1):50–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.979129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schleich J, Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2018) Do perceptions of international climate policy stimulate or discourage voluntary climate protection activities? A study of German and US households. Clim Policy 18(5):568–580.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1409189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwirplies C (2018) Citizens’ acceptance of climate change adaptation and mitigation: a survey in China, Germany, and the U.S. Ecol Econ 145:308–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2016) Offset carbon emissions or pay a price premium for avoiding them? A cross-country analysis of motives for climate protection activities. Appl Econ 48(9):746–758.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2015.1085647 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwirplies C, Dütschke E, Schleich J, Ziegler A (2019) The willingness to offset CO2 emissions from traveling: findings from discrete choice experiments with different framings. Ecol Econ 165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shang J, Croson R (2009) A field experiment in charitable contribution: the impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. Econ J 119(540):1422–1439.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02267.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tavoni A, Dannenberg A, Kallis G, Löschel A (2011) Inequality, communication, and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(29):11825–11829.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102493108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Welsch H, Kühling J (2009) Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: the role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecol Econ 69(1):166–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations