Renewable energy and willingness to pay: Evidences from a meta-analysis

Author/s Gianluca Grilli
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2017/1-2 Language English
Pages 19 P. 253-271 File size 303 KB
DOI 10.3280/EFE2017-001013
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In the present paper, the relevant literature in the field of willingness to pay (WTP) for green electricity has been reviewed and collected. It was attempted to provide an overview of the research carried out so far and possible future areas of investigation. Globally, 34 papers, containing 151 observations, were gathered and included in a meta-regression. The econometric analysis was conducted with the aid of weighted least square models. The main objective of the proposed work is to understand the effects of some country-level variables on the stated willingness to pay for renewable energy, as well as, survey specific variables. In particular, it was found that the present level of CO2 emissions, the share of renewables and the specification of the energy source in the scenario are positively related to the stated. The actual level of energy consumption, conversely, has a negative effect on WTP. Interestingly, producing nuclear energy contributes to lower the stated WTP for renewables. In terms of WTP, on average people are willing to contribute to RE with 13.29 USD per month. The use of biomass for energy has a lower stated WTP, of 11.02 USD. WTP for wind and solar were assessed to be very similar, of about 14.14.66 USD and 14.40 USD, respectively. Eventually, WTP for hydropower and geothermal energy was of 9.57 USD and 36.90 USD. The present study also suggests that more research would be helpful in the renewable energy field, in particular in developing countries.

Keywords: Green electricity, clean electricity, stated preferences, meta-regression, economic valuation, contingent valuation, choice experiment

Jel codes: C21, D61, Q42

  1. Abdullah S., Jeanty P.W. (2011). Willingness to pay for renewable energy: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey in Kenya. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15: 2974-2983.
  2. Aldy J.E., Kotchen M.J., Leiserowitz A.A. (2012). Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard. Nature Climate Change, 2: 596-599.
  3. Aravena C., Martinsson P., Scarpa R. (2014). Does money talk? – The effect of a monetary attribute on the marginal values in a choice experiment. Energy Economics, 44: 483-491.
  4. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on Contingent valuation.
  5. Bartczak A., Lindhjem H., Stenger A. (2008). Review of benefit transfer studies in the forest context. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 42: 276-304.
  6. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R., Ferrini S., Schaafsma M., Barton D.N., Dubgaard A., Hasler B., Hime S., Liekens I., Navrud S., De Nocker L., Ščeponavičiūtė R., Semėnienė D. (2011). Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics, 50: 365-387.
  7. Belsley D.A., Kuh E., Welsch R.E. (1980). Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influentiad Data and Sources of Collinearity, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA.
  8. Ben-Akiva M., McFadden D., Train K., Walker J., Bhat C., Bierlaire M., Bolduc D., Boersch-Supan A., Brownstone D., Bunch D.S., Daly A., de Palma A., Gopinath D., Karlstrom A., Munizaga M.a. (2002). Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mark. Lett., 13: 163-175. DOI: 10.1023/A:1020254301302
  9. Bigerna S., Polinori P. (2011). Italian Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Sources. SSRN Electronic Journal.
  10. Binder M., Blankenberg A.-K. (2016). Environmental concerns, volunteering and subjective well-being: Antecedents and outcomes of environmental activism in Germany. Ecological Economics, 124: 1-16.
  11. Bollino C.A. (2009). The Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Sources: The Case of Italy with Socio-demographic Determinants. Energy Journal, 30: 81-96.
  12. Borchers A.M., Duke J.M., Parsons G.R. (2007). Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? Energy Policy, 35: 3327-3334.
  13. Boyle K.J., Bergstrom J.C. (1992). Benefit transfer studies: myths, pragmatism, and idealism. Water Resources Research, 28: 657-663.
  14. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P.K. (2009). Microeconometrics using Stata, Stata Press books. Stata Press, College Station. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(00)00050-6
  15. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P.K. (2005). Microeconometrics – Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  16. Cameron T.A., Poe G.L., Ethier R.G., Schulze W.D. (2002). Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same? Journal of Environmental Economics Management, 44: 391-425.
  17. Champ P.A., Boyle K.J., Brown T.C. (Eds.) (2003). A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6
  18. Chen W.-M., Kim H., Yamaguchi H. (2014). Renewable energy in eastern Asia: Renewable energy policy review and comparative SWOT analysis for promoting renewable energy in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Energy Policy, 74: 319-329.
  19. Cicia G., Cembalo L., Del Giudice T., Palladino A. (2012). Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey. Energy Policy, 42: 59-66.
  20. Czajkowski M., Buszko-Briggs M., Hanley N. (2009). Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 68: 2910-2917.
  21. Daubert J.T., Young R.A. (1981). Recreational Demands for Maintaining Instream Flows: A Contingent Valuation Approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63, 666. DOI: 10.2307/1241209
  22. De Salvo M., Signorello G. (2015). Non-market valuation of recreational services in Italy: A meta-analysis. Ecosystem Services, 16: 47-62.
  23. Farhar B.C., Houston A. (1996). Houston: Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Renewable energy, in: Proc. 1996 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, ACEEE.
  24. García-de la Fuente L., Colina A., Colubi A., González-Rodríguez G. (2009). Valuation of Environmental Resources: The Case of the Brown Bear in the North of Spain. Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 15: 81-91.
  25. Giergiczny M., Czajkowski M., Żylicz T., Angelstam P. (2015). Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecological Economics, 119: 8-23.
  26. Gracia A., Barreiro-Hurlé J., Pérez y Pérez L. (2012). Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region. Energy Policy, 50: 784-794.
  27. Greene W.H. (2003). Econometric Analysis.
  28. Grilli G., De Meo I., Garegnani G., Paletto A. (2017). A multi-criteria framework to assess the sustainability of renewable energy development in the Alps. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60: 1276-1295. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1216398
  29. Grilli G., Paletto A., De Meo I. (2014). Economic Valuation of Forest Recreation in an Alpine Valley. Balt. For., 20: 167-175.
  30. Guo X., Liu H., Mao X., Jin J., Chen D., Cheng S. (2014). Willingness to pay for renewable electricity: A contingent valuation study in Beijing, China. Energy Policy, 68: 340-347.
  31. Hanemann M., Labandeira X., Loureiro M.L. (2010). Climate Change, Energy and Social Preferences on Policies: Exploratory Evidence for Spain. Economics for Energy.
  32. Hanley N., Barbier E. (2009). Pricing Nature: Cost-benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  33. Hanley N., Nevin C. (1999). Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland. Energy Policy, 27: 527-547. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00023-3
  34. Hanley N., Wright R., Adamowicz W.L. (1998). Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource, 11: 413-428.
  35. Hastik R., Basso S., Geitner C., Haida C., Poljanec A., Portaccio A., Vrščaj B., Walzer C. (2015). Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 48: 608-623.
  36. Hite D., Duffy P., Bransby D., Slaton C. (2008). Consumer willingness-to-pay for biopower: Results from focus groups. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32: 11-17.
  37. Hoyos D., Mariel P., Hess S. (2015). Incorporating environmental attitudes in discrete choice models: An exploration of the utility of the awareness of consequences scale. Science of the Total Environment, 505: 1100-1111.
  38. IEA (1997). Renewable Energy Policy in IEA Countries, Volume 1: Overview. International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
  39. IFM (2015). -- [WWW Document].
  40. Ivanova G. (2012). Are Consumers ‘ Willing to Pay Extra for the Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources ? An example of Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 2: 758-766.
  41. Jalil A., Mahmud S.F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: A cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37: 5167-5172.
  42. Kaenzig J., Heinzle S.L., 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.
  43. Kahn R.D. (2000). Siting Struggles. The Electricity Journal, 13: 21-33. DOI: 10.1016/S1040-6190(00)00085-3
  44. Kalkuhl M., Edenhofer O., Lessmann K. (2013). Renewable energy subsidies: Second-best policy or fatal aberration for mitigation? Resource and Energy Economics, 35: 217-234.
  45. Kim J., Park J., Kim J., Heo E. (2013). Renewable electricity as a differentiated good? The case of the Republic of Korea. Energy Policy, 54: 327-334.
  46. Komarek T.M., Lupi F., Kaplowitz M.D. (2011). Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution. Energy Policy, 39: 5105-5115.
  47. Kontogianni A., Tourkolias C., Skourtos M. (2013). Renewables portfolio, individual preferences and social values towards RES technologies. Energy Policy, 55: 467-476.
  48. Kosenius A.-K., Ollikainen M. (2013). Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources. Energy Policy, 62: 1148-1156.
  49. Kostakis I., Sardianou E. (2012). Which factors affect the willingness of tourists to pay for renewable energy? Renewable Energy, 38: 169-172.
  50. Larentis D.G., Collischonn W., Olivera F., Tucci C.E.M. (2010). Gis-based procedures for hydropower potential spotting. Energy, 35: 4237-4243.
  51. Ma C., Rogers A.A., Kragt M.E., Zhang F., Polyakov M., Gibson F., Chalak M., Pandit R., Tapsuwan S. (2015). Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy: A Meta-Regression Analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, 42 (27).
  52. Mahieu P.-A., Donfouet H.P.P., Kriström B. (2015). Determinants of willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: does the age of nuclear power plant reactors matter? Revue d’économie politique, 125: 299-315.
  53. Mozumder P., Vásquez W.F., Marathe A. (2011). Consumers’ preference for renewable energy in the southwest USA. Energy Economics, 33: 1119-1126.
  54. Mueller J.M. (2013). Estimating Arizona residents’ willingness to pay to invest in research and development in solar energy. Energy Policy, 53: 462-476.
  55. Navrud S., Bråten G. (2007). Consumers’ preferences for green and brown electricity: A choice modelling approach. Revue d’économie politique, 117: 795-811.
  56. Newbery D. (2012). Reforming Competitive Electricity Markets to Meet Environmental Targets. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 1: 69-82. DOI: 10.5547/2160-5890.1.1.7
  57. Nomura N., Akai M. (2004). Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Applied Energy, 78: 453-463.
  58. OECD (2015). -- [WWW Document].
  59. OECD/IEA (2015). -- [WWW Document].
  60. Oliver H., Volschenk J., Smit E. (2011). Residential consumers in the Cape Peninsula’s willingness to pay for premium priced green electricity. Energy Policy, 39: 544-550.
  61. Paish O. (2002). Small hydro power: technology and current status. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 6: 537-556. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-0321(02)00006-0
  62. Paydar N., Schenk O., Bowers A., Carley S., Rupp J., Graham J.D. (2016). The Effect of Community Reinvestment Funds on Local Acceptance of Unconventional Gas Development. Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy, 5.
  63. Piotto D. (2008). A meta-analysis comparing tree growth in monocultures and mixed plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 781-786.
  64. Roe B., Teisl M.F., Levy A., Russell M. (2001). US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy, 29: 917-925. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00006-4
  65. Sardianou E., Genoudi P. (2013). Which factors affect the willingness of consumers to adopt renewable energies? Renewable Energy, 57: 1-4.
  66. Sims C. (2013). Hypothetical Market Familiarity and the Disconnect between Stated and Observed Values for Green Energy. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 3: 10-19.
  67. Soliño M., Farizo B.A., Campos P. (2009a). The influence of home-site factors on residents’ willingness to pay: An application for power generation from scrubland in Galicia, Spain. Energy Policy, 37: 4055-4065.
  68. Soliño M., Vázquez M.X., Prada A. (2009b). Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: Does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay? Energy Policy, 37: 531-540.
  69. Stigka E.K., Paravantis J.A., Mihalakakou G.K., (2014). Social acceptance of renewable energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32: 100-106.
  70. Streimikienė D., Mikalauskiene A. (2014). Lithuanian Consumer’s Willingness To Pay and Feed-in Prices for Renewable Electricity. Amfiteatru Econ. an Econ. Bus. Res. Period. 16, 594-605.
  71. Sundt S., Rehdanz K. (2015). Consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Economics, 51: 1-8.
  72. Susaeta A., Lal P., Alavalapati J., Mercer E. (2011). Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States. Energy Economics, 33: 1111-1118.
  73. Tirole J. (2012). Some Political Economy of Global Warming. Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy, 1: 121-132. DOI: 10.5547/2160-5890.1.1.10
  74. Tyrväinen L. (2001). Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Managemet, 62: 75-92.
  75. Vaillancourt K., Bahn O., Frenette E., Sigvaldason O. (2017). Exploring deep decarbonization pathways to 2050 for Canada using an optimization energy model framework. Appl. Energy, 195: 774_785.
  76. van der Horst D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 35: 2705-2714.
  77. van Kooten G.C., Eagle A.J., Manley J., Smolak T. (2004). How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks. Environmental Science and Policy, 7: 239-251.
  78. Vecchiato D., Tempesta T. (2015). Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments. Energy, 88: 168-179.
  79. Weitzman M.L. (2015). Internalizing the Climate Externality: Can a Uniform Price Commitment Help? Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy, 4: 37-50.
  80. Woodward R.T., Wui Y.-S. (2001). The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 37: 257-270. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00276-7
  81. Yao R.T., Scarpa R., Rose J.M., Turner J.A. (2014). Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field. Environmental and Resource Economics, 62: 433-455.
  82. Yoo S.-H., Kwak S.-Y. (2009). Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Energy Policy, 37: 5408-5416.
  83. Zhang L., Wu Y. (2012). Market segmentation and willingness to pay for green electricity among urban residents in China: The case of Jiangsu Province. Energy Policy, 51: 514-523.
  84. Zografakis N., Sifaki E., Pagalou M., Nikitaki G., Psarakis V., Tsagarakis K.P. (2010). Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14: 1088-1095.

  • Pro-Ecological Energy Attitudes towards Renewable Energy Investments before the Pandemic and European Energy Crisis: A Segmentation-Based Approach Alicja Małgorzata Graczyk, Marta Kusterka-Jefmańska, Bartłomiej Jefmański, Andrzej Graczyk, in Energies /2023 pp.707
    DOI: 10.3390/en16020707
  • The European Market for Guarantees of Origin for Green Electricity: A Scenario-Based Evaluation of Trading under Uncertainty Alexander Wimmers, Reinhard Madlener, in SSRN Electronic Journal /2020
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3830442
  • Measuring willingness to pay for electricity: The case of New Brunswick in Atlantic Canada Yuri Yevdokimov, Viktor Getalo, Dhirendra Shukla, Tugcan Sahin, in Energy & Environment /2019 pp.292
    DOI: 10.1177/0958305X18790954
  • The European Market for Guarantees of Origin for Green Electricity: A Scenario-Based Evaluation of Trading under Uncertainty Alexander Wimmers, Reinhard Madlener, in Energies /2023 pp.104
    DOI: 10.3390/en17010104
  • Institutions and consumer preferences for renewable energy: A meta-regression analysis Mayula Chaikumbung, in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111143/2021 pp.111143
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111143
  • Econometric Studies on the Development of Renewable Energy Sources to Support the European Union 2020–2030 Climate and Energy Framework: A Critical Appraisal Consolación Quintana-Rojo, Fernando-Evaristo Callejas-Albiñana, Miguel-Ángel Tarancón, Isabel Martínez-Rodríguez, in Sustainability /2020 pp.4828
    DOI: 10.3390/su12124828
  • Household's willingness to pay for renewable electricity: A meta-analysis Yushi Wang, Libo Wu, Yang Zhou, in Energy Economics 107390/2024 pp.107390
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107390

Gianluca Grilli, Renewable energy and willingness to pay: Evidences from a meta-analysis in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 1-2/2017, pp 253-271, DOI: 10.3280/EFE2017-001013