IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fisisi/s062023.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preferred design elements of the energy transition: From the perspective of households

Author

Listed:
  • Breitschopf, Barbara
  • Büttner, Isabelle
  • Burghard, Uta

Abstract

In light of the increasing climate change, policy makers have set ambitious targets for greenhouse gas emission. To achieve these targets, it is necessary to speed up the installation of renewable wind and solar power plants. This dynamic calls for an accelerated planning and permitting process with low resistance from citizens. To ensure a high acceptance of the energy transition, it is important to understand which design elements or characteristics, objectives or impacts of the energy transition are more or less preferred by citizens. This study therefore investigates what the preferred design elements for a fair and secure energy transition of German households look like. Based on literature and Energy Union objectives and policies, key dimensions are identified and then described by design elements. The dimensions are: the form of burden sharing of energy transition costs (distributional aspects), actions with respect to investment in and consumption of energy, the origin and security of energy supply and policies for a sustainable energy transition. To identify the favoured design elements, we applied a conjoint analysis. In an online survey conducted among 2000 German citizens, the respondents were asked to choose between two designs of the energy transition that are described by a design element per dimension. The results show that German households favour the polluter-pays rule for burden sharing, a regional energy supply to ensure supply security, information and appeals as policy instruments to promote the energy transition. Regarding actions, households opt for installing private photovoltaics. At the level of dimensions, the approval and refusal of the suggested burden sharing mechanisms were larger than those of the suggested energy supply design elements.

Suggested Citation

  • Breitschopf, Barbara & Büttner, Isabelle & Burghard, Uta, 2023. "Preferred design elements of the energy transition: From the perspective of households," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S06/2023, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fisisi:s062023
    DOI: 10.24406/publica-1967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/279434/1/1866633821.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.24406/publica-1967?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pepermans, Guido, 2011. "The value of continuous power supply for Flemish households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7853-7864.
    2. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    3. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    4. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Stephan Sommer, 2018. "Equity and the willingness to pay for green electricity in Germany," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 876-881, October.
    5. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bernadeta Gołębiowska, 2020. "Preferences for demand side management—a review of choice experiment studies," Working Papers 2020-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    3. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    4. Woo, C.K. & Ho, T. & Shiu, A. & Cheng, Y.S. & Horowitz, I. & Wang, J., 2014. "Residential outage cost estimation: Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 204-210.
    5. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    6. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    7. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    8. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    9. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Skreli, Engjell & Imami, Drini, 2012. "Analyzing Consumers’ Preferences for Apple Attributes in Tirana, Albania," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, November.
    11. Julia Blasch & Robert W. Turner, 2016. "Environmental art, prior knowledge about climate change, and carbon offsets," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 691-705, December.
    12. Masiero, Lorenzo & Qiu, Richard T.R., 2018. "Modeling reference experience in destination choice," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 58-74.
    13. Mahadevan, Renuka & Asafu-Adjaye, John, 2015. "Exploring the potential for green revolution: a choice experiment on maize farmers in Northern Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15.
    14. Hou, Bo & Wu, Linhai & Chen, Xiujuan, 2019. "Market simulation of traceable food in China based on conjoint-value analysis: a traceable case of pork," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(5), December.
    15. Campbell, Robert & Venn, Tyron & Anderson, Nathaniel, 2015. "Quantifying Social Preferences toward Woody Biomass Energy Generation in Montana, USA," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205678, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    17. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & Oppen, Matthias Von, 2007. "Farmer willingness to pay for seed-related information: rice varieties in Nigeria and Benin," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(6), pages 799-825, December.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Mtimet, Nadhem & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Masakazu, N., 2008. "Exploring Japanese olive oil consumer behavior," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44457, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    design elements; energy transition; preferences; burden sharing; energysecurity; investor;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:fisisi:s062023. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isfhgde.html .

    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.