nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Private Ancillary Benefits in a Joint Production Framework

verfasst von : Claudia Schwirplies

Erschienen in: Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter focuses on private ancillary benefits from climate protection activities and their potential to work as motivating factors for individuals and their climate-friendly activities and support of climate policies. In contrast to the primary benefits on the climate, private ancillary benefits appear to be more attractive to the individual as they directly increase their utility in the short run and are associated with less uncertainty. We discuss existing empirical literature on financial advantages, internal satisfaction, health benefits, and fairness as secondary benefits. We do not come to a clear conclusion and recommendation whether actors from the public and private sector should lay more emphasis on the secondary private benefits when promoting climate protection measures. Empirical evidence is either scarce or mixed or both, such that the chapter points out future research needs in this respect.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Impure Public Good Models as a Tool to Analyze the Provision of Ancillary and Primary Benefits

Nächstes Kapitel Impure Public Goods and the Aggregative Game Approach

Examples include carbon-neutral certified goods, green energy programs, vehicles with alternative propulsion technologies, and energy-efficient appliances.

By ancillary benefits we understand positive externalities from climate protection measures, i.e., secondary or co-benefits such as financial, economic, or health benefits.

The internet search engine Ecosia, the campaign “tree pate” by the online retailer OTTO or the Crombacher campaign to protect one square meter of the rainforest per case of beer sold are well-known examples in Germany.

This means that we extend the model with additional private characteristics and all three channels contribute to the generation of each private characteristic (e.g., health, internal satisfaction) depending on the respective production technology.

That is, buying energy-efficient appliances, saving energy at home, reducing meat or dairy products, using energy from renewable sources, buying a car with lower fuel consumption, reducing car use, and reducing flights.

This makes sense, since consumers in Germany usually pay a price premium for green energy tariffs.

However, there is also evidence that individual choose burden-sharing rules in a more self-serving manner, i.e. favoring the rule that is least costly for their country (e.g., Carlsson et al. 2013).

Descriptive norm refers to the perception or belief of how much others actually contribute to climate protection. Injunctive norm refer to the perception or belief of how much oneself or others ought to contribute.

Ajzen I, Rosenthal LH, Brown TC (2000) Effects of perceived fairness on willingness to pay. J Appl Social Pyschol 30(12):2439–2450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02444.x CrossRef

Akter S, Brouwer R, Brander L, van Beukering P (2009) Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets. Ecol Econ 68(6):1858–1863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.013 CrossRef

Andor MA, Frondel M, Sommer S (2018) Equity and the willingness to pay for green electricity in Germany. Nat Energy 3(10):876–881. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0233-x CrossRef

Andreoni J (1995) Cooperation in public-goods experiments: kindness or confusion? Am Econ Rev 85(4):891–904. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118238 CrossRef

Anik L, Norton MI, Ariely D (2014) Contingent match incentives increase donations. J Market Res 51(6):790–801. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0432 CrossRef

Araghi Y, Kroesen M, Molin E, van Wee B (2014) Do social norms regarding carbon offsetting affect individual preferences towards this policy? Results from a stated choice experiment. Transport Res D Transport Environ 26(0):42–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.10.008 CrossRef

Ariely D, Bracha A, Meier S (2009) Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. Am Econ Rev 99(1):544–555. https://doi.org/10.2307/29730196 CrossRef

Bain PG, Milfont TL, Kashima Y, Bilewicz M, Doron G, Garðarsdóttir RB, Gouveia VV, Guan Y, Johansson L-O, Pasquali C, Corral-Verdugo V, Aragones JI, Utsugi A, Demarque C, Otto S, Park J, Soland M, Steg L, González R, Lebedeva N, Madsen OJ, Wagner C, Akotia CS, Kurz T, Saiz JL, Schultz PW, Einarsdóttir G, Saviolidis NM (2015) Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat Clim Change 6:154–157. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2814 CrossRef

Bernauer T, McGrath LF (2016) Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Change 6:680. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2948 CrossRef

Blasch J (2015) Doing good or undoing harm—doing good or undoing harm—framing voluntary contributions to climate change mitigation. Conference paper presented at the EAERE 2015

Blasch J, Farsi M (2014) Context effects and heterogeneity in voluntary carbon offsetting—a choice experiment in Switzerland. J Environ Econ Policy 3(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2013.842938 CrossRef

BMUB (2016) Bundesregierung wirbt für nachhaltigen Konsum: Nationales Programm verabschiedet. http://www.bmub.bund.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/pm/artikel/bundesregierung-wirbt-fuer-nachhaltigen-konsum/. Accessed 13 Dec 2016

Bó PD, Foster A, Putterman L (2010) Institutions and behavior: experimental evidence on the effects of democracy. Am Econ Rev 100(5):2205–2229. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.5.2205 CrossRef

Bohnet I, Frey BS, Huck S (2001) More order with less law: on contract enforcement, trust, and crowding. Am Polit Sci Rev 95(01):131–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401000211 CrossRef

Bolderdijk JW, Steg L, Geller ES, Lehman PK, Postmes T (2012) Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat Clim Change 3:413. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1767 CrossRef

Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am Econ Rev 90(1):166–193. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.1.166 CrossRef

Bothner F, Dorner F, Herrmann A, Fischer H, Sauerborn R (2019) Explaining climate policies’ popularity—an empirical study in four European countries. Environ Sci Policy 92:34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.009 CrossRef

Brekke KA, Kverndokk S, Nyborg K (2003) An economic model of moral motivation. J Public Econ 87(9–10):1967–1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00222-5 CrossRef

Brouwer R, Brander L, Beukering P (2008) “A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Clim Change 90(3):299–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9414-0 CrossRef

Cai B, Cameron TA, Gerdes GR (2010) Distributional preferences and the incidence of costs and benefits in climate change policy. Environ Resour Econ 46(4):429–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9348-7 CrossRef

Carlsson F, Daruvala D, Johansson-Stenman O (2005) Are people inequality-averse, or just risk-averse? Economica 72(287):375–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0427.2005.00421.x CrossRef

Carlsson F, Kataria M, Krupnick A, Lampi E, Löfgren Å, Qin P, Sterner T (2013) A fair share: burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China. Resour Energy Econ 35(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.11.001 CrossRef

Cary JW, Wilkinson RL (1997) Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. J Agric Econ 48(1-3):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1997.tb01127.x CrossRef

Clark CF, Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. J Environ Psychol 23(3):237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00105-6 CrossRef

Crumpler H, Grossman PJ (2008) An experimental test of warm glow giving. J Public Econ 92(5–6):1011–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.12.014 CrossRef

Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008) Forecasting risk attitudes: an experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. J Econ Behav Organ 68(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.04.006 CrossRef

Evans L, Maio GR, Corner A, Hodgetts CJ, Ahmed S, Hahn U (2012) Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nat Clim Change 3:122. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1662 CrossRef

Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q J Econ 114(3):817–868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151 CrossRef

Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ Lett 71(3):397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9 CrossRef

Frey BS, Oberholzer-Gee F (1997) The cost of price incentives: an empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. Am Econ Rev 87(4):746–755

Glazer A, Konrad KA (1996) A signaling explanation for charity. Am Econ Rev 86(4):1019–1028

Harbaugh WT (1998) What do donations buy?: a model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow. J Public Econ 67(2):269–284CrossRef

Holländer H (1990) A social exchange approach to voluntary cooperation. Am Econ Rev 80(5):1157–1167

IPCC (2001) Climate change: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Johnson LT (2006) Distributional preferences in contingent valuation surveys. Ecol Econ 56(4):475–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.11.019 CrossRef

Kaenzig J, Heinzle SL, Wüstenhagen R (2013) Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany. Energy Policy 53:311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.061 CrossRef

Karlan D, List JA (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Am Econ Rev 97(5):1774–1793. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.5.1774 CrossRef

Kesternich M, Löschel A, Römer D (2016) The long-term impact of matching and rebate subsidies when public goods are impure: field experimental evidence from the carbon offsetting market. J Public Econ 137:70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.01.004 CrossRef

Kotchen MJ (2006) Green markets and private provision of public goods. J Polit Econ 114(4):816–834. https://doi.org/10.1086/506337 CrossRef

Lange A, Schwirplies C (2019) Private contributions and the regional scope of charities: how donation experiments can inform public policy. Working paper

Lange A, Ziegler A (2015) Offsetting versus mitigation activities to reduce CO2 emissions: a theoretical and empirical analysis for the U.S. and Germany. Environ Resour Econ 66(1):113–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9944-7 CrossRef

Lange A, Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2017) On the interrelation between carbon offsetting and other voluntary pro-environmental activities: theory and empirical evidence. Resour Energy Econ 47:72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.11.002 CrossRef

List JA (2011) The market for charitable giving. J Econ Perspect 25(2):157–180. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.2.157 CrossRef

List JA, Price MK (2012) Charitable giving around the world: thoughts on how to expand the pie. CESifo Econ Stud 58(1):1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifr023 CrossRef

Longo A, Hoyos D, Markandya A (2012) Willingness to pay for ancillary benefits of climate change mitigation. Environ Resour Econ 51(1):119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9491-9 CrossRef

Mayer H, Flachmann C (2016) Umweltökonomische Gesamtrechnungen: Direkte und indirekte CO2-Emissionen in Deutschland 2005–2012. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/UmweltoekonomischeGesamtrechnungen/CO2EmissionenPDF_5851305.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2016

Meier S (2007) Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in the field. J Eur Econ Assoc 5(6):1203–1222CrossRef

Menges R, Schroeder C, Traub S (2005) Altruism, warm glow and the willingness-to-donate for green electricity: an artefactual field experiment. Environ Resour Econ 31(4):431–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3365-y CrossRef

Miao L, Wei W (2013) Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations: a comparison between household and hotel settings. Int J Hospit Manag 32:102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.008 CrossRef

Nyborg K, Rege M (2003) Does public policy crowd out private contributions to public goods. Public Choice 115(3–4):397–418CrossRef

Nyborg K, Howarth RB, Brekke KA (2006) Green consumers and public policy: on socially contingent moral motivation. Resour Energy Econ 28(4):351–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2006.03.001 CrossRef

Perino G, Schwirplies C (2019) Meaty arguments and fishy associations: field experimental evidence on the impact of reasons to reduce meat consumption on intentions, behavior and satisfaction. Working paper

Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 68(1–2):210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.02.020 CrossRef

Rege M (2004) Social norms and private provision of public goods. J Public Econ Theory 6(1):65–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2004.00157.x CrossRef

Rondeau D, List JA (2008) Matching and challenge gifts to charity: evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments. Exp Econ 11(3):253–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9190-0 CrossRef

Rübbelke DTG (2002) International climate policy to combat global warming: an analysis of the ancillary benefits of reducing carbon emissions. Elgar, Cheltenham

Rübbelke DTG (2011) International support of climate change policies in developing countries: strategic, moral and fairness aspects. Ecol Econ 70(8):1470–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.007 CrossRef

Schleich J, Dütschke E, Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2016) Citizens’ perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis. Clim Policy 16(1):50–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.979129 CrossRef

Schleich J, Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2018) Do perceptions of international climate policy stimulate or discourage voluntary climate protection activities? A study of German and US households. Clim Policy 18(5):568–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1409189 CrossRef

Schwirplies C (2018) Citizens’ acceptance of climate change adaptation and mitigation: a survey in China, Germany, and the U.S. Ecol Econ 145:308–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.003 CrossRef

Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2016) Offset carbon emissions or pay a price premium for avoiding them? A cross-country analysis of motives for climate protection activities. Appl Econ 48(9):746–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2015.1085647 CrossRef

Schwirplies C, Dütschke E, Schleich J, Ziegler A (2019) The willingness to offset CO2 emissions from traveling: findings from discrete choice experiments with different framings. Ecol Econ 165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106384 CrossRef

Shang J, Croson R (2009) A field experiment in charitable contribution: the impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. Econ J 119(540):1422–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02267.x CrossRef

Tavoni A, Dannenberg A, Kallis G, Löschel A (2011) Inequality, communication, and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(29):11825–11829. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102493108 CrossRef

Welsch H, Kühling J (2009) Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: the role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecol Econ 69(1):166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.009 CrossRef

Titel: Private Ancillary Benefits in a Joint Production Framework
verfasst von: Claudia Schwirplies
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30977-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-30978-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30978-7_7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner