Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:20:23.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer preferences for fixed versus variable quantities of electricity: joint estimation of contingent quantity and valuation methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2016

Dale T. Manning  and
John B. Loomis
Dale T. Manning
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Clark Building B304, 1172 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1172, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
John B. Loomis
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The structure of stated preference questions to value consumption from public infrastructure can vary depending on the conditions of consumption facing the household. Specifically, a good could be offered as a quasi-public or quasi-private good. This paper demonstrates how consumption from two alternative electricity allocation options can be valued using two types of stated preference questions. Since surveyed households were asked two types of questions, the authors develop a joint model of a contingent valuation question and a contingent quantity behavior response that allows for correlation in error terms across models. In their application to two villages in Rwanda, the authors find higher WTP for electricity consumed as a quasi-private good rather than a quasi-public good, with four hours of electricity per day, only in the evening. They also find correlation in the error terms across the two models, suggesting that their joint estimator is more efficient than estimating each model individually.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 6 , December 2016 , pp. 789 - 811
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdullah, S. and Mariel, P. (2010), ‘Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services’, Energy Policy 38(8): 4570–4581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdullah, S. and Markandya, A. (2012), ‘Rural electrification programmes in Kenya: policy conclusions from a valuation study’, Energy for Sustainable Development 16(1): 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., and Williams, M. (1994), ‘Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(3): 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberini, A., Zanatta, V., and Rosato, P. (2007), ‘Combining actual and contingent behavior to estimate the value of sports fishing in the Lagoon of Venice’, Ecological Economics 61(2–3): 530–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, A.A.G. and Thorbecke, E. (2000), ‘The state and path of poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: some preliminary results’, Journal of African Economies 9(Suppl. 1): 9–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, R., Bhattacharya, S., and Kojima, M. (2010), Expenditure of Low-income Households on Energy: Evidence from Africa and Asia, Extractive Industries for Development Series No. 16, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Banerjee, S.G., Baringanire, P., and Malik, K. (2014), Scaling Up Access to Electricity: The Case of Rwanda, Live Wire Knowledge Note Series No. 2014/22, Washington, DC: World Bank, [Available at] http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/06/19670601/scaling-up-access-electricity-case-rwanda.Google Scholar
Bensch, G., Kluve, J., and Peters, J. (2011), ‘Impacts of rural electrification in Rwanda’, Journal of Development Effectiveness 3(4): 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brent, A.C. and Rogers, D.E. (2010), ‘Renewable rural electrification: sustainability assessment of mini-hybrid off-grid technological systems in the African context’, Renewable Energy 35(1): 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, C.D. (2014), ‘Evaluating mitigation and calibration techniques for hypothetical bias in choice experiments’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 75(11): 1831–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabraal, R.A., Barnes, D.F., and Agarwal, S.G. (2005), ‘Productive uses of energy for rural development’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K. (2005), Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, T.A., Shaw, W.D., Ragland, S.E., Callaway, J.M., and Keefe, S. (1996), ‘Using actual and contingent behavior data with differing levels of time aggregation to model recreation demand’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(1): 130–149.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T. and Groves, T. (2007), ‘Incentive and informational properties of preference questions’, Environmental and Resource Economics 37(1): 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravorty, U., Pelli, M., and Marchand, B.U. (2014), ‘Does the quality of electricity matter? Evidence from rural India’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 107(Part A): 228–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., and Brown, T.C. (eds) (2012), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Vol. 3, Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Dinkelman, T. (2011), ‘The effects of rural electrification on employment: new evidence from South Africa’, American Economic Review 101(7): 3078–3108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbakidze, L., Nayga, R.M., Li, H., and McIntosh, C. (2014), ‘Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions’, Agricultural Economics 45(2): 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of Rwanda (2015), ‘Rwanda SE4ALL Action Agenda’, Second Annual United Nations Sustainable Energy for All Forum, [Available at] http://www.se4allforum.org/sites/default/files/SE4All%20Country%20Action#20in#20Africa#20-#20Rwanda.pdf.Google Scholar
Grijalva, T.C., Berrens, R.P., Bohara, A.K., and Shaw, D. (2002), ‘Testing the validity of contingent behavior trip responses’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(2): 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalisa, T. (2014), ‘Rural electrification in Rwanda: a measure of willingness to contribute time and money’, GATE Working Paper No. 1413, [Available at] http://ssrn.com/abstract=2412519.Google Scholar
Kanase-Patil, A.B., Saini, R.P., and Sharma, M.P. (2010), ‘Integrated renewable energy systems for off grid rural electrification of remote area’, Renewable Energy 35(6): 1342–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khandker, S.R., Barnes, D.F., and Samad, H.A. (2012), ‘The welfare impacts of rural electrification in Bangladesh’, The Energy Journal 33(1): 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khandker, S.R., Barnes, D.F., and Samad, H.A. (2013), ‘Welfare impacts of rural electrification: a panel data analysis from Vietnam’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 61(3): 659–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipscomb, M., Mobarak, A.M., and Barham, T. (2013), ‘Development effects of electrification: evidence from the topographic placement of hydropower plants in Brazil’, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5(2): 200–231.Google Scholar
Loomis, J., Pierce, C., and Manfredo, M. (2000), ‘Using the demand for hunting licences to evaluate contingent valuation estimates of willingness to pay’, Applied Economics Letters 7(7): 435–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, D.T., Means, P., Zimmerle, D., Galvin, K., Loomis, J., and Paustian, K. (2015), ‘Using contingent behavior analysis to measure benefits from rural electrification in developing countries: an example from Rwanda’, Energy Policy 86: 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. and Hope, C. (2000), ‘Learning to lend for off-grid solar power: policy lessons from World Bank loans to India, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka’, Energy Policy 28(2): 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (2013), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (1st edn), Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., and Weatherhead, D. (2005), ‘A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation’, Environmental and Resource Economics 30(3): 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OAG (2015), ‘Performance audit of the electricity access rollout programme’, Kigali: Office of the Auditor General of State Finances, Rwanda, [Available at] http://oag.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Performance_Reports/PERFORMANCE_AUDIT_OF_THE_ELECTRICITY_ACCESS_ROLLOUT_PROGRAMME_EARP_.pdf.Google Scholar
Petrolia, D.R., Joonghyun, H., Landry, C.E., and Coble, K.H. (2015), ‘Wind insurance and mitigation in the coastal zone’, Land Economics 91(2): 272–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiche, K., Covarrubias, A., and Martinot, E. (2000), ‘Expanding electricity access to remote areas: off-grid rural electrification in developing countries’, Fuel 1(1.2): 1–4.Google Scholar
Roodman, D. (2009), ‘Estimating fully observed recursive mixed-process models with Cmp’, Working Paper No. 168, Center for Global Development, Washington, DC, [Available at] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1392466.Google Scholar
Shah, A. (1992), ‘Dynamics of public infrastructure, industrial productivity and profitability’, Review of Economics and Statistics 74(1): 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, D. (1998), ‘Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries’, World Development 26(1): 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2015), ‘Where does the world stand in reaching sustainable energy objectives?’, Washington, DC: World Bank, [Available at] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/05/18/where-does-the-world-stand-inreaching-sustainable-energy-objectives.Google Scholar