Can Laboratory Experiments Help in Evaluating Emission Trading Schemes? A Pilot Experiment on Aviation Allowances: Lessons to Be Learned

  • Sabrina ArmenioEmail author
  • Angela Stefania Bergantino
  • Andrea Morone


The objective of this paper is to show the importance of incentivized laboratory experiments in the analysis of people’s propensity towards sustainability and in evaluating environmentally friendly investments. We discuss the application of a laboratory experiment to environmental regulation. In particular, we analyse the emission trading scheme (ETS) with reference to the aviation sector. In the laboratory, we test the propensity of firms to purchase permits to emit CO2 and to change their production technology. We consider a realistic framework by identifying a maximum limit of emissions established by the regulator, offering the opportunity to firms to change the initial (highly pollutant) technology. We first carry out a non-incentivized pilot experiment. Afterwards, we run an incentivized experiment. This paper shows that experiments are a valid policy support instrument, but their correct design is topical for its performance.


  1. Abraham, J., McMillan, S., Brownlee, A., & Hunt, J. D. (2004). Investigation of cycling sensitivities. Presented at 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, E., Brewer, M., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1985). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 441–486). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601–4614.Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, I., Carson, R. T., Brett Day, W., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., TannisHett, M. J.-L., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergantino, A. S., De Carlo, A., & Morone, A. (2015, April 25). Individuals’ behaviour with respect to parking alternatives: A laboratory experiment. MPRA Paper No. 63815, posted 13:11 UTC. Google Scholar
  6. Bergantino, A. S. & Loiacono, L. (2019). The impact of the European Union Emission Trading System on the aviation sector. In Sustainable aviation: The greening of the flight path. Palgrave, forthcoming. Google Scholar
  7. Camacho-Cuena, E., Garcìa-Gallego, A., Georgantzìs, N., & Sabater Grande, G. (2004). An experimental validation of hypothetical WTP for a recyclable product. Environmental & Resource Economics, 27, 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camacho-Cuena, E., Requate, T., & Waichman, I. (2012). Investment incentives under emission trading: An experimental study. Environmental Resource Economics, 53, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C., Hanemann, M., Kopp, R. J., Ruud, P. S. A., & Paul, A. (2003). Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental & Resource Economics, 25, 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbetta, P. (2014). Metodologia e tecniche della ricerca sociale (2° edizione). Il Mulino – Scienze sociali, ristampa.Google Scholar
  11. Ewing, G., & Sarigöllü, E. (2000). Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel vehicles: A discrete choice experiment. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 19(1), 106–118. Google Scholar
  12. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, D., & Sunder, S. (1994). Experimental methods. A primer for economists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hanemann, W. M. (1994, Fall). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 19–43.Google Scholar
  15. Hanemann, W. M. (1999). Neo-classical economic theory and contingent valuation. In I. J. Bateman & K. G. Willis (Eds.), Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Ademowicz, V. (1998). Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental & Resource Economics, 11(3–4), 414–428.Google Scholar
  17. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. (2004, December). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, XLII, 1009–1055.Google Scholar
  18. Harrison, G. W., List, J., & Towe, C. (2007, March). Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometrica, 75(2), 433–458.Google Scholar
  19. Holt, C. A. (2006). Markets, games, and strategic behavior: Recipes for interactive learning. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011, September). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in areal labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399–425.Google Scholar
  21. International Air Transport Association—IATA. (2011). Vision 2050. IATA Report.Google Scholar
  22. Kelly, C. E., Tight, M. R., Hodgson, F. C., & Page, M. W. (2011). A comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability of the pedestrian environment. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 1500–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007, Spring). What do laboratory experiments measuring social references reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174.Google Scholar
  24. Matyas, M., & Kamargianni, M. (2018). Survey design for exploring demand for Mobility as a Service plans. Transportation.
  25. Morone, P., Falcone, P. M., Imbert, E., & Morone, A. (2018). Does food sharing lead to food waste reduction? An experimental analysis to assess challenges and opportunities of a new consumption model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 749–760. Google Scholar
  26. Rand, D. G. (2012). The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruto E., & Garrod G. (2009). Investigating farmers preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: A choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(5), 631–647.Google Scholar
  28. Tilahun, N. Y., Levinson, D. M., & Krizek, K. J. (2006). Trails, lanes, or traffic: valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. Transportation Research Part A, 41(2007), 287–301.Google Scholar
  29. Wolfers, J., & Zitzewitz, E. (2004, Spring). Prediction markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(2), 107–126.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabrina Armenio
    • 1
    Email author
  • Angela Stefania Bergantino
    • 1
  • Andrea Morone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsManagement and Business Law, University of BariBariItaly

Personalised recommendations