Advertisement

The Relevance of Consumer Preferences and Behaviour for Climate Policy Design: Evidence from Germany

  • Peter HeindlEmail author
  • Anna Wolff
  • Ines Weber
  • Christiane Reif
  • Bernhard Gill
Chapter

Abstract

The transition of the energy system and radical decarbonisation of the economy represents a strong change in a rather short period of time. In this article, we discuss the relevance of aspects of behaviour in relation to the transition of the energy system. We focus on three aspects: First, the benefits and disadvantages of local policies and initiatives. Second, aspects of behaviour relating to adaptation to technology based on a field study on energy-efficient refurbishments. Third, distributive effects of ambitious climate policy and expected changes in consumption patterns and welfare of households. Overall, preferences and behaviour have important implications for the effectiveness and long-term success of (ambitious) climate policies and should therefore receive greater attention in policy design.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research benefitted from funding by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the grant agreement no. 01UT1411, Integrierte Analyse einer grünen Transformation.

References

  1. Aigeltinger, G., et al. (2017). Zum Stromkonsum von Haushalten in Grundsicherung: Eine Empirische Analyse Für Deutschland. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 18(4), 348–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics CXV, 115(3), 715–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach, S., Kohlhaas, M., Meyer, B., Praetorius, B., & Welsch, H. (2002). The effects of environmental fiscal reform in Germany: A simulation study. Energy Policy, 30(9), 803–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1971). The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 73(1), 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1988). The theory of environmental policy (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchholz, W., & Heindl, P. (2015). Ökonomische Herausforderungen Des Klimawandels. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 16(4), 324–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calì, D., et al. (2016). Energieeinsparpotential Sanierter Wohngebäude Unter Berücksichtigung Realer Nutzungsbedingungen. Berlin: Fraunhofer IPK.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, Y., & Li, S. X. (2009). Group identity and social preferences. The American Economic Review, 99(1), 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deaton, A. (2016). Measuring and understanding behavior, welfare, and poverty. American Economic Review, 106(6), 1221–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellerman, A. D., & Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: Origins, allocation, and early results. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1(1), 66–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enseling, A., & Hinz, E. (2008). Wirtschaftlichkeit Energiesparender Maßnahmen Im Bestand Vor Dem Hintergrund Der Novellierten EnEV. Darmstadt: IWU.Google Scholar
  12. Espey, J. A., & Espey, M. (2004). Turning on the lights: A meta-analysis of residential electricity demand elasticities. Journal of Agricultural and Applies Economics, 36(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2001). Directive 2001/77/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 27 september 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. Official Journal of the European Communities L, 283, 33–40.Google Scholar
  14. Farmer, J. D., Hepburn, C., Mealy, P., & Teytelboym, A. (2015). A third wave in the economics of climate change. Environmental and Resource Economics, 62(2), 329–357.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9965-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frankfurt, H. (2015). On inequality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallier, C. et al. (2017). Leveling up? An inter-neighborhood experiment on parochialism and the efficiency of multi-level public goods provision. ZEW discussion paper (No. 17–012).Google Scholar
  17. Gerarden, T. D., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2017). Assessing the energy-efficiency gap. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(4), 1486–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerber, S. (2015). Küche, Kühlschrank, Kilowatt. Zur Geschichte Des Privaten Energiekonsums in Deutschland. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Gill, B., Kossmann, B., & von Wangenheim, G. (2016). Wege Aus Dem Vermieter-Mieter-Dilemma Bei Der Energetischen Modernisierung: Einsparabhängige Statt Kostenabhängige Refinanzierung.Google Scholar
  20. Gillingham, K., & Palmer, K. (2014). Bridging the energy efficiency gap: Policy insights from economic theory and empirical evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(1), 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grösche, P., & Schröder, C. (2013). On the redistributive effects of Germany’s feed-in tariff. Empirical Economics, 46(4), 1339–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guerra-Santin, O., Romero Herrera, N., Cuerda, E., & Keyson, D. (2016). Mixed methods approach to determine occupants - behaviour analysis of two case studies. Energy and Buildings, 130, 546–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hargreavesn, T., Nye, M., & Burgess, J. (2010). Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6111–6119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heindl, P. (2017). Sozialpolitische Konsequenzen Der Energiewende. Ökologisches Wirtschaften, 32(3), 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heindl, P., & Kanschik, P. (2016). Ecological sufficiency, individual liberties, and distributive justice: Implications for policy making. Ecological Economics, 126, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heindl, P. & Liessem, V. (2017). Ursachen von Stromsperren in Privathaushalten: Empirische Ergebnisse Aus Der Allgemeinen Sozialberatung. ZEW discussion paper 17–061:1–24.Google Scholar
  27. Henger, R., & Voigtländer, M. (2011). Einflussfaktoren Auf Die Rentabilität Energetischer Sanierungen Bei Mietobjekten Vermieter-Mieter-Dilemma Literaturüberblick. IW-Trends - Vierteljahresschrift zur empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung, 38(1/11), 1–19.Google Scholar
  28. Hirschl, B. (2008). Erneuerbare Energien-Politik. Eine Multi-Level Policy-Analyse Mit Fokus Auf Den Deutschen Strommarkt. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Horn, M. (1977). Die Energiepolitik Der Bundesregierung von 1958 Bis 1972. In J. Broermann (Ed.), Zur Bedeutung Der Penetration Ausländischer Ölkonzerne in Die Energiewirtschaft Der BRD Für Die Abhängigkeit Interner Strukturen Und Entwicklungen. Berlin: Volkwirtsc.Google Scholar
  30. Kern, K., Koenen, S., & Löffelsend, T. (2003). Die Umweltpolitik Der Rot–grünen Koalition – Strategien Zwischen Nationaler Pfadabhängigkeit Und Globaler Politikkonvergenz. WZB Discussion Paper SP IV 2003–103 37 S.Google Scholar
  31. KfW/IW Köln. (2010). Wohngebäudesanierer-Befragung 2010. Hintergründe Und Motive Zur Energetischen Sanierung Des Wohnungsbestands. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  32. Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature XLI(December), 41, 1188–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Musgrave, R. A. (2002). A brief history of fiscal doctrine. In A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (Eds.), Handbook of public economics (Vol. I, pp. 1–59). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  34. Schröder, C., & Grösche, P. (2015). Plädoyer Für Einen Energiesoli. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 16(4), 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schulte, I., & Heindl, P. (2017). Price and income elasticities of residential energy demand in Germany. Energy Policy, 102(3), 512–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sen, A. (1967). Isolation, assurance and the social rate of discount. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(1), 112–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suding, P. H. (1989). Policies affecting energy consumption in the Federal Republic of Germany. Annual Review of Energy, 14, 205–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sunikka-Blank, M., & Galvin, R. (2012). Introducing the Prebound effect: The gab between performance and actual energy consumption. Building Research & Information, 40(3), 260–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tullock, G. (1981). Why so much stability. Public Choice, 37(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tweed, C., Humes, N., & Zapata-Lancaster, G. (2015). The changing landscape of thermal experience and warmth in older people’s dwellings. Energy Policy, 84(2015), 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UBA. (2015). Daten Zur Umwelt: Umwelt, Haushalte Und Konsum. Berlin: Umweltbundesamt.Google Scholar
  42. van Raaij, W. F., & Verhallen, T. M. M. (1983). Patterns of residential energy behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 4(1–2), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Way, M., & Bordass, B. (2005). Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 2: Soft landings – Involving design and building teams in improving performance. Building Research & Information, 33(4), 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolff, A., & Weber, I. (2017). Case study: Analyzing the outcome of energetic retrofit from a tenant’s point of view – Who bears the costs? München.Google Scholar
  45. Wolff, A., Weber, I., Gill, B., Schubert, J., & Schneider, M. (2017). Tackling the interplay of occupants’ heating practices and building physics: Insights from a German mixed methods study. Energy Research & Social Science, 32, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Heindl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Wolff
    • 2
  • Ines Weber
    • 2
  • Christiane Reif
    • 1
  • Bernhard Gill
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Resource EconomicsCentre for European Economic Research (ZEW)MannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of SociologyLudwig-Maximilians Universität Munich (LMU)MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations