lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v121y2018icp80-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizen preferences for possible energy policies at the national and state levels

Author

Listed:
  • Peterson, Mark
  • Feldman, David
Abstract
Without knowledge of citizen preferences, policy makers most often rely on their intuition to infer such preferences or on biased information provided by special interest groups. Using a choice-modeling approach, the study features two large-scale, field-research projects—one done nationally in the US, and another composed of separate data collection efforts across eight states where energy policies have a high profile in public discourse. The results suggest four outcomes of energy policies are most important to citizens at the national level: 1) environmental quality, 2) energy costs, 3) job creation, and 4) greenhouse gas emissions. This pattern of importance for the outcomes of energy policy persists across important demographic groups including those related to political-party affiliation. At the state level, the four preferred outcomes of energy policies seen at the national level also appear—although in a different order of preference in some states. Further analysis of citizens’ willingness to change energy policy at the state level suggests that risk aversion characterizes citizens’ views about revising energy policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Peterson, Mark & Feldman, David, 2018. "Citizen preferences for possible energy policies at the national and state levels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 80-91.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:121:y:2018:i:c:p:80-91
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518303872
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.069?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Butler, C. & Demski, C. & Parkhill, K. & Pidgeon, N. & Spence, A., 2015. "Public values for energy futures: Framing, indeterminacy and policy making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 665-672.
    3. Dietrich, F.K. & Spiekermann, K., 2010. "Epistemic democracy with defensible premises," Research Memorandum 066, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    4. John R. Hauser, 1978. "Testing the Accuracy, Usefulness, and Significance of Probabilistic Choice Models: An Information-Theoretic Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 406-421, June.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June.
    7. Peterson, Thomas D. & Rose, Adam Z., 2006. "Reducing conflicts between climate policy and energy policy in the US: The important role of the states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 619-631, March.
    8. Lee, Donghyun & Kim, Minki & Lee, Jungyoun, 2016. "Adoption of green electricity policies: Investigating the role of environmental attitudes via big data-driven search-queries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 187-201.
    9. Sanya Carley & Tyler R. Browne, 2013. "Innovative US energy policy: a review of states' policy experiences," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(5), pages 488-506, September.
    10. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    11. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    12. Ming Lu & Yiran Xia, 2016. "Migration in the People’s Republic of China," ADBI Working Papers 593, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    13. Delmas, Magali A. & Montes-Sancho, Maria J., 2011. "U.S. state policies for renewable energy: Context and effectiveness," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2273-2288, May.
    14. Dietrich, Franz & Spiekermann, Kai, 2013. "Epistemic Democracy With Defensible Premises1," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 87-120, March.
    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. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    2. Lim, Taekyoung & Guzman, Tatyana S. & Bowen, William M., 2020. "Rhetoric and Reality: Jobs and the Energy Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. Sharpton, Tara & Lawrence, Thomas & Hall, Margeret, 2020. "Drivers and barriers to public acceptance of future energy sources and grid expansion in the United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    4. Shahzad, Qaisar & Aruga, Kentaka, 2025. "Trade-off in energy policy: Evidence from a best-worst discrete choice experiment," MPRA Paper 124119, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Shahzad, Qaisar & Aruga, Kentaka, 2025. "Trade-off in energy policy: Evidence from a best-worst discrete choice experiment," MPRA Paper 124042, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Lorteau, Steve & Muzzerall, Parker & Deneault, Audrey-Ann & Kennedy, Emily Huddart & Rocque, Rhéa & Racine, Nicole & Bureau, Jean-François, 2024. "Do climate concerns and worries predict energy preferences? A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    7. Xu, Haitao & Pan, Xiongfeng & Guo, Shucen & Lu, Yuduo, 2021. "Forecasting Chinese CO2 emission using a non-linear multi-agent intertemporal optimization model and scenario analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    8. Aruga, Kentaka & Bolt, Timothy & Pest, Przemysław, 2021. "Energy policy trade-offs in Poland: A best-worst scaling discrete choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(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. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    2. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    4. Peter Reichert & Klemens Niederberger & Peter Rey & Urs Helg & Susanne Haertel-Borer, 2019. "The need for unconventional value aggregation techniques: experiences from eliciting stakeholder preferences in environmental management," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 197-219, November.
    5. Antonini, Marcello & Genie, Mesfin G. & Attwell, Katie & Attema, Arthur E. & Ward, Jeremy K. & Melegaro, Alessia & Torbica, Aleksandra & Kelly, Brian & Berardi, Chiara & Sequeira, Ana Rita & McGregor,, 2025. "Are we ready for the next pandemic? Public preferences and trade-offs between vaccine characteristics and societal restrictions across 21 countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 366(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    8. Ramalho, Edimar & Lima, Fátima & López-Maciel, Max & Madaleno, Mara & Villar, José & Dias, Marta Ferreira & Botelho, Anabela & Meireles, Mónica & Robaina, Margarita, 2025. "Understanding wind Energy Economic externalities impacts: A systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    9. Pivato, Marcus, 2017. "Epistemic democracy with correlated voters," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 51-69.
    10. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    11. Demel, Simona & Longo, Alberto & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Trading off visual disamenity for renewable energy: Willingness to pay for seaweed farming for energy production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    12. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Alexander H DeGolia & Elizabeth H T Hiroyasu & Sarah E Anderson, 2019. "Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    14. repec:ehu:biltok:8011 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Menegaki, Angeliki N., 2012. "A social marketing mix for renewable energy in Europe based on consumer stated preference surveys," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 30-39.
    16. Christian List & Adrian Vermeule, 2014. "Independence and interdependence: Lessons from the hive," Rationality and Society, , vol. 26(2), pages 170-207, May.
    17. Daniel P'erez-Troncoso, 2020. "A step-by-step guide to design, implement, and analyze a discrete choice experiment," Papers 2009.11235, arXiv.org.
    18. George Masterton & Erik J. Olsson & Staffan Angere, 2016. "Linking as voting: how the Condorcet jury theorem in political science is relevant to webometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 945-966, March.
    19. Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann, 2025. "Deliberation and the wisdom of crowds," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 79(2), pages 603-655, March.
    20. Gurumurthy, K. & Little, John D. C. & University of Texas at Dallas. Marketing Center., 2003. "A price response model developed from perceptual theories," Working papers 89-5, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    21. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia, 2020. "Loss aversion, reference dependence and diminishing sensitivity in choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:enepol:v:121:y:2018:i:c:p:80-91. 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/enpol .

    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.
    Лучший частный хостинг