IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v100y2021ics0140988321002577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Lehmann, Nico
  • Sloot, Daniel
  • Ardone, Armin
  • Fichtner, Wolf

Abstract

The German energy transition has led to a strong expansion of renewable energies in recent years. As a result, the German population is increasingly coming into contact with generation facilities. To increase local acceptance for new installations and to create new sales channels for energy suppliers, the legislature has established the “System for Guarantees of Regional Origin” in 2019, which allows the marketing of electricity from subsidized facilities as “electricity generated in the region”. However, regional electricity comes with additional costs on the procurement and sales side of energy suppliers, and it is unclear whether and to what extent consumers are willing to pay a premium for electricity generated regionally. This study investigates the willingness to pay (WTP) of residential customers based on two samples of 838 and 59 respondents, respectively. Our model results show that, on average, WTP for regional electricity generation is positive, especially among female, younger and better-educated customers, although differences in WTP between these sociodemographic characteristics are small. Factors that are more relevant are the current type of electricity tariff, differentiated into non-green and green, with the latter having a positive influence, but also the tariff switching behavior of the past, which is a proxy for price sensitivity. Although WTP is positive, it is severely limited, and only pertains to a subgroup of electricity customers. Hence, it is not surprising that our simulation shows that including a regional green electricity tariff in an energy supplier's portfolio is likely to lead to product cannibalization, meaning that mainly green electricity customers will choose this tariff. From an energy supplier's perspective, these results raise the question of whether offering a regional electricity tariff is economically viable. Future research could further investigate what underlying factors drive preferences for regionally generated electricity and how it can contribute to local acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:100:y:2021:i:c:s0140988321002577
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988321002577
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105351?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    2. David Hensher, 2014. "Attribute processing as a behavioural strategy in choice making," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 12, pages 268-289, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Ivan Diaz‐Rainey & John K. Ashton, 2011. "Profiling potential green electricity tariff adopters: green consumerism as an environmental policy tool?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(7), pages 456-470, November.
    4. Joel Huber and Kenneth Train., 2000. "On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths," Economics Working Papers E00-289, University of California at Berkeley.
    5. Lehmann, Nico & Müller, Jonathan Benedikt & Ardone, Armin & Karner, Katharina & Fichtner, Wolf, 2020. "Regionalität aus Sicht von Energieversorgungsunternehmen - eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse zu Regionalstrom in Deutschland," Working Paper Series in Production and Energy 48, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Industrial Production (IIP).
    6. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    7. John M. Rose & Michiel C.J. Bliemer, 2014. "Stated choice experimental design theory: the who, the what and the why," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 7, pages 152-177, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Regier, Dean A. & Ryan, Mandy & Phimister, Euan & Marra, Carlo A., 2009. "Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: An application to genetic testing," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 598-610, May.
    9. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    10. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    11. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    12. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    13. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    14. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    15. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R., 2016. "Quality uncertainty and the market for renewable energy: Evidence from German consumers," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 106-113.
    17. Carol Inoue Dick & Aaron Praktiknjo, 2019. "Blockchain Technology and Electricity Wholesale Markets: Expert Insights on Potentials and Challenges for OTC Trading in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-25, March.
    18. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Vossler, Christian A. & Budziński, Wiktor & Wiśniewska, Aleksandra & Zawojska, Ewa, 2017. "Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preferences methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 47-63.
    19. Mewton, Ross T. & Cacho, Oscar J., 2011. "Green Power voluntary purchases: Price elasticity and policy analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 377-385, January.
    20. Sundt, Swantje & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    21. Anselm Mattes, 2012. "Grüner Strom: Verbraucher sind bereit, für Investitionen in erneuerbare Energien zu zahlen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 79(7), pages 2-9.
    22. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    23. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    24. Smith, Scott M. & Roster, Catherine A. & Golden, Linda L. & Albaum, Gerald S., 2016. "A multi-group analysis of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel to MTurk samples," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 3139-3148.
    25. Christian Friege & Carsten Herbes, 2017. "Some Basic Concepts for Marketing Renewable Energy," Management for Professionals, in: Carsten Herbes & Christian Friege (ed.), Marketing Renewable Energy, pages 3-26, Springer.
    26. Grösche, Peter & Schröder, Carsten, 2011. "Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 363-370, March.
    27. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    28. Jelke Bethlehem, 2010. "Selection Bias in Web Surveys," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 78(2), pages 161-188, August.
    29. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    30. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    31. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1897-1902, May.
    32. Sauthoff, Saramena & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2017. "To switch or not to switch? – Understanding German consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity tariff attributes," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260771, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    33. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11431 is not listed on IDEAS
    34. Yildiz, Özgür, 2014. "Financing renewable energy infrastructures via financial citizen participation – The case of Germany," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 677-685.
    35. Fait, Larissa & Wetzel, Heike & Groh, Elke D., 2020. "Choice Preferences for Regional and Green Electricity: Influence of Regional and Environmental Identity," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224574, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    36. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    37. Shmelev, Stanislav E. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2016. "Optimal diversity of renewable energy alternatives under multiple criteria: An application to the UK," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 679-691.
    38. David A. Hensher & William H. Greene, 2011. "Valuation of Travel Time Savings in WTP and Preference Space in the Presence of Taste and Scale Heterogeneity," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 45(3), pages 505-525, September.
    39. Petr Mariel & David Hoyos & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Thijs Dekker & Klaus Glenk & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Ulf Liebe & Søren Bøye Olsen & Julian Sagebiel & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments," SpringerBriefs in Economics, Springer, number 978-3-030-62669-3, June.
    40. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Marco Horvath, 2021. "Consequentiality, Elicitation Formats, and the Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity: Evidence from Germany," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(3), pages 626-640.
    41. Crabbe, M. & Vandebroek, M., 2012. "Improving the efficiency of individualized designs for the mixed logit choice model by including covariates," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 2059-2072.
    42. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    43. Yang, Yingkui & Solgaard, Hans Stubbe & Haider, Wolfgang, 2016. "Wind, hydro or mixed renewable energy source: Preference for electricity products when the share of renewable energy increases," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 521-531.
    44. Ritsuko Ozaki, 2011. "Adopting sustainable innovation: what makes consumers sign up to green electricity?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.
    45. Grebitus, Carola & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 11-26.
    46. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    47. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    48. Mozumder, Pallab & Vásquez, William F. & Marathe, Achla, 2011. "Consumers' preference for renewable energy in the southwest USA," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1119-1126.
    49. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    50. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    51. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    52. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    53. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    54. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E., 2011. "Recovery of inter- and intra-personal heterogeneity using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 973-990, August.
    55. Layer, Patrick & Feurer, Sven & Jochem, Patrick, 2017. "Perceived price complexity of dynamic energy tariffs: An investigation of antecedents and consequences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 244-254.
    56. Xiaoping He & David Reiner, 2017. "Why Consumers Switch Energy Suppliers: The Role of Individual Attitudes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 6).
    57. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    58. Peter Lenk, 2014. "Bayesian estimation of random utility models," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 20, pages 457-497, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    59. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    60. Hess, Stephane & Spitz, Greg & Bradley, Mark & Coogan, Matt, 2018. "Analysis of mode choice for intercity travel: Application of a hybrid choice model to two distinct US corridors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 547-567.
    61. Christian Schlereth & Bernd Skiera, 2017. "Two New Features in Discrete Choice Experiments to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimation That Result in SDR and SADR: Separated (Adaptive) Dual Response," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 829-842, March.
    62. Tabi, Andrea & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2014. "What makes people seal the green power deal? — Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 206-215.
    63. Lehmann, Nico & Müller, Jonathan Benedikt & Ardone, Armin & Karner, Katharina & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Regionalität aus Sicht von Energieversorgungs- und Direktvermarktungsunternehmen: Eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse zu Regionalstrom in Deutschland," Working Paper Series in Production and Energy 59, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Industrial Production (IIP).
    64. Dütschke, Elisabeth & Paetz, Alexandra-Gwyn, 2013. "Dynamic electricity pricing—Which programs do consumers prefer?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 226-234.
    65. Kaenzig, Josef & Heinzle, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2013. "Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 311-322.
    66. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    67. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    68. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    69. Hensher, David A. & Stopher, Peter R. & Louviere, Jordan J., 2001. "An exploratory analysis of the effect of numbers of choice sets in designed choice experiments: an airline choice application," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 373-379.
    70. Ma, Chunbo & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E. & Zhang, Fan & Polyakov, Maksym & Gibson, Fiona & Chalak, Morteza & Pandit, Ram & Tapsuwan, Sorada, 2015. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable energy: A meta-regression analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 93-109.
    71. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    72. Bengart, Paul & Vogt, Bodo, 2021. "Fuel mix disclosure in Germany—The effect of more transparent information on consumer preferences for renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    73. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    74. Leong, Waiyan & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Embedding multiple heuristics into choice models: An exploratory analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 131-144.
    75. Sütterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2017. "Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 356-366.
    76. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    77. Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13.
    78. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Sridhar, Araavind & Honkapuro, Samuli & Ruiz, Fredy & Stoklasa, Jan & Annala, Salla & Wolff, Annika & Rautiainen, Antti, 2023. "Residential consumer preferences to demand response: Analysis of different motivators to enroll in direct load control demand response," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Will, Christian & Lehmann, Nico & Baumgartner, Nora & Feurer, Sven & Jochem, Patrick & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer understanding and evaluation of carbon-neutral electric vehicle charging services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    4. Menzel, Tobias & Teubner, Timm, 2024. "Signaling sustainability and regionality in the electricity market: An eye-tracking study on visual labels," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 353(PB).
    5. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer preferences for the design of a demand response quota scheme – Results of a choice experiment in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Will, Christian & Lehmann, Nico & Baumgartner, Nora & Feurer, Sven & Jochem, Patrick & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer understanding and evaluation of carbon-neutral electric vehicle charging services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    2. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Willingness to pay for regional electricity generation – A question of green values and regional product beliefs?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer preferences for the design of a demand response quota scheme – Results of a choice experiment in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Herbes, Carsten & Rilling, Benedikt & MacDonald, Scott & Boutin, Nathalie & Bigerna, Simona, 2020. "Are voluntary markets effective in replacing state-led support for the expansion of renewables? – A comparative analysis of voluntary green electricity markets in the UK, Germany, France and Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    9. Groh, Elke D., 2022. "Exposure to wind turbines, regional identity and the willingness to pay for regionally produced electricity," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R., 2016. "Quality uncertainty and the market for renewable energy: Evidence from German consumers," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 106-113.
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Sauthoff, Saramena & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2017. "To switch or not to switch? – Understanding German consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity tariff attributes," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260771, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    13. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    14. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    15. Hackbarth, André, 2018. "Attitudes, preferences, and intentions of German households concerning participation in peer-to-peer electricity trading," Reutlingen Working Papers on Marketing & Management 2019-2, Reutlingen University, ESB Business School.
    16. Buckell, John & White, Justin S. & Shang, Ce, 2020. "Can incentive-compatibility reduce hypothetical bias in smokers’ experimental choice behavior? A randomized discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    17. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    18. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    19. Hackbarth, André & Löbbe, Sabine, 2020. "Attitudes, preferences, and intentions of German households concerning participation in peer-to-peer electricity trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:100:y:2021:i:c:s0140988321002577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.