Economics (CERE) is an inter-disciplinary and inter-university research centre at the Umeå Campus: Umeå University and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. The main objectives with the Centre are to tie together research groups at the different departments and universities; provide seminars and workshops within the field of environmental & resource economics and management; and constitute a platform for a creative and strong research environment within the field.Abstract: We report on a discrete choice experiment aimed at eliciting Swedish households' willingness-to-accept a compensation for restrictions on household electricity and heating use during peak hours. When analyzing data from discrete choice experiments, we typically assume that people make rational utility maximizing decisions, i.e., that they consider all of the attribute information and compare all alternatives. However, mounting evidence shows that people use a wide range of simplifying strategies that are inconsistent with utility maximization.We use a flexible model capturing a two-stage decision process. In the first stage, respondents are allowed to eliminate from their choice set alternatives that contain an unacceptable level, i.e., restrictions on the use of heating and electricity. In the second stage, respondents choose in a compensatory manner between the remaining alternatives. Our results show that about half of our respondents choose according to an elimination-by-aspects strategy, and that, on average, they are unwilling to accept any restrictions on heating in the evening or electricity use, irrespective of time-of-day. Furthermore, we find that considering elimination-by-aspects behavior leads to a downward shift in elicited willingness-to-accept. We discuss implications for policy.JEL codes: C25, Q41, Q51, R21
In this paper we investigate if a pro-environmental framing influences households' stated willingness to accept restrictions on their electricity use. We use a split-sample choice experiment (CE) and ask respondents to choose between their current electricity contract and hypothetical contracts featuring various load controls and a monetary compensation. Our results indicate that the pro-environmental framing have little impact on the respondents' choices. We observe a significant framing effect on choices and marginal willingness-to-accept (MWTA) for only a few contract attributes. The results further suggest that there is no significant framing effect among households that engage in different pro-environmental activities.
We report on a discrete choice experiment aimed at eliciting Swedish households' willingness-to-accept a compensation for restrictions on household electricity and heating use during peak hours. When analyzing data from discrete choice experiments, we typically assume that people make rational utility maximizing decisions, i.e., that they consider all of the attribute information and compare all alternatives. However, mounting evidence shows that people use a wide range of simplifying strategies that are inconsistent with utility maximization.We use a flexible model capturing a two-stage decision process. In the first stage, respondents are allowed to eliminate from their choice set alternatives that contain an unacceptable level, i.e., restrictions on the use of heating and electricity. In the second stage, respondents choose in a compensatory manner between the remaining alternatives. Our results show that about half of our respondents choose according to an elimination-by-aspects strategy, and that, on average, they are unwilling to accept any restrictions on heating in the evening or electricity use, irrespective of time-of-day. Furthermore, we find that considering elimination-by-aspects behavior leads to a downward shift in elicited willingness-to-accept. We discuss implications for policy.
In this paper we investigate if a pro-environmental framing influences households' stated willingness to accept restrictions on their electricity use. We use a split-sample choice experiment (CE) and ask respondents to choose between their current electricity contract and hypothetical contracts featuring various load controls and a monetary compensation. Our results indicate that the pro-environmental framing have little impact on the respondents' choices. We observe a significant framing effect on choices and marginal willingness-to-accept (MWTA) for only a few contract attributes. The results further suggest that there is no significant framing effect among households that engage in different pro-environmental activities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.