Advertisement

Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable Electricity in Italy: A Comparative Analysis

  • Simona Bigerna
  • Paolo Polinori
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science book series (BRIEFSENVIRONMENTAL)

Abstract

European Union (EU) directive 2009/72/CE imposes environmental and energy targets on European countries. The goal of Italy is to attain 26.4% renewable electricity (RE) production from renewable energy sources (REnS) by 2020. This goal imposes an extra cost on households; consequently, it is important to estimate their willingness to pay (WTP) to attain this target. Our research is based on a nationwide survey of households conducted in November 2007 in Italy, explicitly considering uncertainty and the compulsory burden on the electricity bill. The results obtained with different models indicate that there is noticeable WTP among Italian households for the RE goal and that the estimated WTP differs according to uncertainty. Indeed, the median WTP is between EUR 4.62 and EUR 8.05 every two months per household. In this chapter, the relevance of these findings today is discussed.

Keywords

Willingness to pay Renewable electricity Contingent valuation Uncertainty Economic downturn Policy evaluation 

References

  1. Accent & Rand Europe (2010) Review of stated preference and willingness to pay methods—prepared for Competition Commission. Available via Competition Commission. http://www.competitioncommission.org.uk/our_role/analysis/summary_and_report_combined.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2014
  2. Ackura E (2015) Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity. Ecol Econ 116:84–94Google Scholar
  3. Alberini A, Boyle K, Welsh M (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 45:40–62zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Álvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N (2002) Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms: an example from Spain. Energy Policy 30:107–116Google Scholar
  5. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney RP, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. http://www.cbe.csueastbay.edu/~alima/courses/4306/articles/NOAA%20on%20contingent%20valuation%201993.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2011
  6. Atkinson G, Healey A, Mourato S (2005) Valuing the cost of violent crime: a stated preferences approach. Oxf Econ Pap 57:559–585Google Scholar
  7. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Jones AP, Kerr GN (2001) Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 23:191–213Google Scholar
  8. Batley SL, Fleming PD, Uwin P (2000) Willingness to pay for renewable energy: implications for UK green tariff offerings. Indoor Buil Environ 9:157–170Google Scholar
  9. Batley SL, Colbourne D, Fleming PD, Urwin P (2001) Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market. Energy Policy 29:479–487Google Scholar
  10. Bigerna S, Polinori P (2012) Households’ willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Italy: a bidding game approach. In: Uvalic M (ed) Electricity markets and reforms in Europe. Franco Angeli, Milan, pp 61–84Google Scholar
  11. Bigerna S, Polinori P (2013) A bidding game for Italian households’ WTP for RES. Atl Econ J 4:189–190Google Scholar
  12. Bigerna S, Polinori P (2014) Italian households' willingness to pay for green electricity. Renew Sust Energ Rev 34:110–121Google Scholar
  13. Bollino CA (2009) The willingness to pay for renewable energy sources: the case of Italy with socio demographic determinants. Energy J 30:81–96Google Scholar
  14. Borchers AM, Dukea JM, Parsons RM (2007) Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? Energy Policy 35:3327–3334Google Scholar
  15. Broberg T, Brännlund R (2008) An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data-certainty dependent payment card intervals. Resour Energy Econ 30:555–567Google Scholar
  16. Bulte E, Gerking S, List JA, de Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manag 49:330–342zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Byrnes B, Jones C, Goodmanf S (1999) Contingent valuation and real economic commitments: evidence from electric utility green pricing programmes. J Environ Plan Manag 42:149–166Google Scholar
  18. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manag 17:230–246Google Scholar
  19. Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value non-use benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33:151–162zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (2003) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89:649–665Google Scholar
  22. Dagher L, Harajli H (2015) Willingness to pay for green power in an unreliable electricity sector: part 1. The case of the Lebanese residential sector. Renew Sust Energ Rev 50:1634–1642Google Scholar
  23. De Shazo JR (2002) Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. J Environ Econ Manag 43:360–385zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. de Vries BJM, van Vuuren DP, Hoogwijk MM (2007) Renewable energy sources: their global potential for the first-half of the 21st century at a global level: an integrated approach. Energy Policy 35:2590–2610Google Scholar
  25. Diaz-Rainey I, Ashton JK (2008) Stuck between a ROC and a hard place? Barriers to the take up of green energy in the UK. Energy Policy 36:3053–3061Google Scholar
  26. Evans MF, Flores NE, Boyle KJ (2003) Multiple-bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions. Land Econ 79:549–560Google Scholar
  27. Farhar BC (1999) Willingness to pay for electricity from renewable resources: a review of utility market research. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/26148.pdf. Accessed 21 Jul 2013
  28. Fonta M, Ichoku HE, Ogujiuba KK (2010) Estimating willingness to pay with the stochastic payment card design: Further evidence from rural Cameroon. Environ Dev Sustain 12:179–193Google Scholar
  29. Genius M, Strazzera E (2005) Modeling elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 223–246Google Scholar
  30. Goett AA, Hudson K, Train KE (2000) Customers’ choice among retail energy suppliers: the willingness to pay for service attributes. Energy J 4:1–28Google Scholar
  31. Grösche P, Schröder C (2011) Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques. Energy Econ 33:363–370Google Scholar
  32. Guo X, Liu H, Mao X, Jin J, Chen D, Cheng S (2015) Willingness to pay for renewable electricity: a contingent valuation study in Beijing, China. Energy Policy 68:340–347Google Scholar
  33. Haab TC, McConnell KE (1997) Referendum models and negative WTP: alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manag 32:251–270Google Scholar
  34. Hanemann WM (1989) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses data: replay. Am J Agric Econ 66:1057–1061Google Scholar
  35. Hanemann WM, Labandeira X, Loureiro ML (2011) Climate change, energy and social preferences on policies: exploratory evidence for Spain. Clim Res 48:343–348Google Scholar
  36. Hansla A, Gamble A, Juliusson A, Garling T (2008) Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 36:768–774Google Scholar
  37. Harajli H, Gordon F (2015) Willingness to pay for green power in an unreliable electricity sector: part 2. The case of the Lebanese commercial sector. Renew Sust Energ Rev 50:1643–1649Google Scholar
  38. Harrison GW, Krsitröm B (1995) On the interpretation of responses of contingent valuation surveys. In: Johansson PO, Krsitröm B, Mäler KG (eds) Current issue in environmental economics. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 35–57Google Scholar
  39. Holt EA, Holt MS (2004) Green pricing resource guide. http://www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/electric/08-54/62512ecatexr2.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2012
  40. Ichoku HE, Fonta WM, Kedir A (2009) Measuring individuals’ valuation distributions using a stochastic payment card approach: application to solid waste management in Nigeria. Environ Dev Sustain 11:509–521Google Scholar
  41. IEA (International Energy Agency) (2014) World energy outlook. OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. IEFE (Centre for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy) (2009) Prospettive di sviluppo delle energie rinnovabili per la produzione di energia elettrica. Opportunità per il Sistema Industriale Nazionale—Research Report. http://portale.unibocconi.it/wps/allegatiCTP/Research%20Report%203_1.pdf. Accessed 8 Jun 2010
  43. Ivanova G (2005) Queensland consumers’ willingness to pay for electricity from renewable energy sources. In: Proceedings of the Ecological Economics in Action conference, Palmerston North, 11–12 Dec 2005Google Scholar
  44. Ivanova G (2012) Are consumers’ willing to pay extra for the electricity from renewable energy sources? An example of Queensland, Australia. Int J Renew Energy Res 2:758–755Google Scholar
  45. Jacobsson S, Bergek A (2004) Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. In: Klaus J, Binder M, Wieczorek A (eds) Governance for industrial transformation. Proceedings of the 2003 Berlin conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Environmental Policy Research Centre, Berlin, pp 208–236Google Scholar
  46. Jäger-Waldau A, Szabó M, Scarlat N, Monforti-Ferrario F (2011) Renewable electricity in Europe. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:3703–3716Google Scholar
  47. Kim J, Park J, Kim H, Heo E (2012) Assessment of Korean customers’ willingness to pay with RPS. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:695–703Google Scholar
  48. Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2007) Private provision of environmental public goods: household participation in green-electricity programs. J Environ Econ Manag 53:1–16zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Little J, Berrens R (2004) Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ Bull 3:1–13Google Scholar
  50. Litvine D, Wüstenhagen R (2011) Helping “light green” consumers walk the talk: results of a behavioral intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market. Ecol Econ 70:462–474Google Scholar
  51. Longo A, Markandya A, Petrucci M (2008) The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy renewable energy. Ecol Econ 67:140–152Google Scholar
  52. Longo A, Hoyos D, Markandya A (2012) Willingness to pay for ancillary benefits of climate change mitigation. Environ Res Econ 51:119–140Google Scholar
  53. Loomis J (2011) What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies? J Econ Surv 25:363–370Google Scholar
  54. Loureiro ML, Loomis JB, Vazquez MX (2009) Economic valuation of environmental damages due to the prestige oil spill in Spain. Environ Res Econ 44:537–553Google Scholar
  55. MacKerron GJ, Egerton C, Gaskell C, Parpia A, Mourato S (2009) Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK. Energy Policy 37:1372–1381Google Scholar
  56. Menegaki A (2008) Valuation for renewable energy: a comparative review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 12:2422–2437Google Scholar
  57. Metcalfe PJ, Baker W (2012) The sensitivity of willingness to pay to an economic downturn. (Paper presented at the Envecon 2012—Applied Environmental Economics—conference, London). http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43316/. Accessed 9 Mar 2012
  58. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  59. Mozumder P, Vásquez WF, Marathe A (2011) Consumers’ preference for renewable energy in the southwest USA. Energy Econ 33:1119–1126Google Scholar
  60. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005a) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Res Econ 30:313–325Google Scholar
  61. Murphy JJ, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005b) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environ Res Econ 30:327–343Google Scholar
  62. Nayga RM, Wu X, Brummett RG (2007) On the use of cheap talk in new product valuation. Econ Bull 2:1–9Google Scholar
  63. Nemet GF (2009) Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Res Policy 38:700–709Google Scholar
  64. Nomura N, Akay M (2004) WTP for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl Energy 78:453–463Google Scholar
  65. O’Garra T, Mourato S (2007) Public preferences for hydrogen buses: comparing interval data, OLS and quantile regression approaches. Environ Res Econ 36:389–411Google Scholar
  66. Oliver H, Volschenk J, Smit E (2011) Residential consumers in the Cape Peninsula’s willingness to pay for premium priced green electricity. Energy Policy 39:544–550Google Scholar
  67. Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2008) Cost–benefit analysis and the environment—recent developments. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  68. RAEG (2008) Annual report on the state of services and the regulatory activities. http://www.autorita.energia.it/allegati/inglese/annual_report/relann2008english.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2012
  69. REN21 (2015) Renewables 2015 global status report. REN21 Secretariat, ParisGoogle Scholar
  70. Roe B, Teisl MF, Levy A, Russell M (2001) US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 29:17–925Google Scholar
  71. Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Breffle WS (1996) A test for payment card biases. J Environ Econ Manag 31:178–185zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Salmela S, Varho V (2006) Consumers in the green electricity market in Finland. Energy Policy 34:3669–3683Google Scholar
  73. Samnaliev M, Stevens TH, More T (2003) A comparison of cheap talk and alternative uncertainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2003/ne_2003_samnaliev_001.pdf. Accessed 9 Sep 2011
  74. Sileo V (2011) Dentro i prezzi dell’energia elettrica in Italia. Crescita libera senza limite? http://www.adamsmith.it/download/download/UP120110927123222UPDentro%20i%20prezzi%20Adam%20Smith%20paper.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2012
  75. Soderqvist T, Soutukorva A (2006) An instrument for assessing the quality of environmental valuation studies. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  76. Solino M, Farizo BA, Campos P (2009) The influence of home site factors on residents’ willingness to pay: an application for power generation from scrubland in Galicia, Spain. Energy Policy 37:4055–4065Google Scholar
  77. Vossler CA, Ethier RG, Poe GL, Welsh MP (2003) Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: result from a field validity test. South Econ J 69:886–902Google Scholar
  78. Wang H (1989) Treatment of “don’t know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manag 32:219–232Google Scholar
  79. Wang H (1997a) Treatment of don’t-know responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manag 32:219–232Google Scholar
  80. Wang H (1997b) Contingent valuation of environmental resources: a stochastic perspective. PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  81. Wang H, He J (2011) Estimating individual valuation distributions with multiple bounded, discrete choice data. Appl Econ 43:2641–2656Google Scholar
  82. Wang H, Whittington D (2005) Measuring individuals’ valuation distribution using stochastic payment card approach. Ecol Econ 55:143–154Google Scholar
  83. Welsh MP, Bishop RC (1993) Multiple bounded discrete choice models. http://fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/files/PDFs/W133%206th%20Interim%20Report%201993.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2012
  84. Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manag 36:170–185zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  85. Whitehead J, Cherry T (2007) Willingness to pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resour Energy Econ 29:247–261Google Scholar
  86. Whitehead JC, Hobant TJ, Cliffordt WB (1995) Measurement issues with iterated, continuous-interval contingent valuation data. J Environ Manag 43:129–139Google Scholar
  87. Wiser RH (2007) Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol Econ 62:419–432Google Scholar
  88. Yoo SH, Kwak SY (2009) Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Energy Policy 37:5408–5416Google Scholar
  89. 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 51:514–523Google Scholar
  90. Zografakis N, Sifaki E, Pagalou M, Nikitaki G, Psarakis V, Tsagarakis KP (2010) Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:1088–1095Google Scholar
  91. Zoric J, Hrovatin N (2012) Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia. Energy Policy 47:180–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simona Bigerna
    • 1
  • Paolo Polinori
    • 1
  1. 1.Università di PerugiaPerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations