Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany – do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?
Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany – do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?
复制标题
德国对可再生能源替代方案的明确偏好——调查的后果和对机构的信任重要吗？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Meyerhoff
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Malte Oehlmann;J. Meyerhoff
摘要 这项研究涉及后果性和对机构的信任对德国可再生能源扩张支付估算意愿的影响。我们使用四种信息处理，这些处理在离散选择实验之前参与者收到的信息方面有所不同。根据后果性机制和负责提供评估商品的机构，处理方法有所不同。完成选择任务后，受访者表达了他们对机构的感知后果和信任。我们发现，感知到的政策后果与个人对两个提供机构的信任密切相关。此外，与没有强调调查后果的处理相比，当呈现后果性装置时，参与者更倾向于认为他们的反应至少在某种程度上是有后果的。然而，支付意愿估计值在不同治疗方法和感知后果水平上并无差异。我们推测，由于可再生能源的扩张受到了具有广泛信仰和政治观点的公众的激烈争论，因此无法满足相应选择的要求。
ABSTRACT This research concerns the effect of consequentiality and trust in institutions on willingness to pay estimates towards the expansion of renewable energy in Germany. We use four information treatments which differ in terms of the information participants received prior to a discrete choice experiment. Treatments differ with respect to a consequentiality device and the institution which would be responsible for providing the good under evaluation. After finishing the choice tasks, respondents stated their perceived consequentiality and trust in institutions. We find perceived policy consequentiality to be strongly associated with the trust individuals have in both providing institutions. Moreover, compared to the treatments which did not highlight the consequences of the survey, participants are more inclined to perceive their responses to be at least somewhat consequential when the consequentiality device was presented. However, willingness to pay estimates do neither differ across treatments nor by the level of perceived consequentiality. We speculate that as the expansion of renewable energy is strongly debated with the public having a wide range of beliefs and political views, the requirements for consequential choices are not met.