Trade-off in energy policy: Evidence from a best-worst discrete choice experiment

Shahzad, Qaisar and Aruga, Kentaka (2025): Trade-off in energy policy: Evidence from a best-worst discrete choice experiment.

Abstract

This study addresses the critical issue of climate change awareness in Pakistan by evaluating the Pakistani citizens’ willingness to adopt energy reforms to reduce CO2 emissions. Using best-worst scaling, we examined five key attributes important for reforming the Pakistan energy policy: CO2 emission reduction, energy independence, employment impact, transition time, and changes in energy price. The findings reveal a strong preference for reducing CO2 emissions, enhancing energy independence, increasing employment, and accelerating policy implementation. Meanwhile, Pakistan residents revealed concerns about potential increases in energy bills. The analysis showed that male, urban, educated, full-time employed, middle-aged (35-44), married individuals with children, high-income, and environmentally conscious respondents were more willing to trade-off for CO2 reduction. In contrast, apprehension about potential job losses and higher energy bills was prevalent across all subgroups. The study recommends diversifying energy sources, including nuclear and hydro-energy, as a strategic approach to balance environmental goals with economic stability in Pakistan. These insights into public energy policy preferences can inform policymakers and researchers in similar developing countries of sustainable energy strategies.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: CO2 emission, Unemployment, Trade-off, Energy reform
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q48 - Government Policy; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q56 - Environment and Development ; Environment and Trade ; Sustainability ; Environmental Accounts and Accounting ; Environmental Equity ; Population Growth

References

Accenture. (2010). The New Energy World: The Consumer Perspective, (available at 〈http://accenturehighperformancebusiness.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-New-Energy-World-Consumer-Perspective-Video-Transcript.pdf〉 (Accessed 25 August 2015).

Afroz, N., & Ilham, Z. (2020). Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice of University Students towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Journal of Indonesia Sustainable Development Planning, 1(1), 31-44.

Alberini, A., Bigano, A., Ščasný, M., & Zvěřinová, I. (2018). Preferences for energy efficiency vs. renewables: what is the willingness to pay to reduce CO2 emissions? Ecological Economics, 144, 171-185.

Arachchi, J. I., & Managi, S. (2021). Preferences for energy sustainability: Different effects of gender on knowledge and importance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 141, 110767.

Aruga, K., Bolt, T., & Pest, P. (2021). Energy policy trade-offs in Poland: A best-worst scaling discrete choice experiment. Energy Policy, 156, 112465.

Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2007). Using best-worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 299-326.

Azarova, V., Cohen, J., Friedl, C., & Reichl, J. (2019). Designing local renewable energy communities to increase social acceptance: Evidence from a choice experiment in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. Energy Policy, 132, 1176-1183.

Burke, P. F., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Buchanan, J., Louviere, J. J., & Prescott, A. (2013). Why do early career teachers choose to remain in the profession? The use of best-worst scaling to quantify key factors. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 259-268.

Cheng, H., Lambert, D. M., DeLong, K. L., & Jensen, K. L. (2022). Inattention, availability bias, and attribute premium estimation for a biobased product. Agricultural Economics, 53(2), 274-288.

Diederich, J., & Goeschl, T. (2014). Willingness to pay for voluntary climate action and its determinants: Field-experimental evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57, 405-429.

Finn, A., & Louviere, J. J. (1992). Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11(2), 12-25.

Goh, I. Z., & Matthew, N. K. (2021). Residents’ willingness to pay for a carbon tax. Sustainability, 13(18), 10118.

Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation: Edward Elgar Publishing.

IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Core Writing Team Pachauri, Rajendra K Allen, Myles R Barros, Vicente R Broome, John Cramer, Wolfgang Christ, Renate Church, John A Clarke, Leon Dahe, Qin Dasgupta, Purnamita.

Irfan, M., Zhao, Z.-Y., Li, H., & Rehman, A. (2020). The influence of consumers’ intention factors on willingness to pay for renewable energy: a structural equation modeling approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 21747-21761.

Jillani, S. (2022). Analysis: China’s shifting energy investments in Pakistan from coal to renewables. The Third Pole. Retrieved from https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/energy/analysis-chinas-shiftingenergy-investments-in-pakistan-from-coal-to-renewables/

Kaczmarczyk, B., & Urych, I. (2022). Perception of the transition to a zero-emission economy in the opinion of Polish students. Energies, 15(3), 1102.

Krinsky, I., & Robb, A. L. (1986). On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The review of economics and statistics, 715-719.

Lancsar, E., Louviere, J., Donaldson, C., Currie, G., & Burgess, L. (2013). Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: methods and an application. Social science & medicine, 76, 74-82.

Lima, P. R., Pereira, A. A. M., Chaves, G. d. L. D., & Meneguelo, A. P. (2021). Environmental awareness and public perception on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Brazil. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 111, 103467.

Louviere, J. J., & Flynn, T. N. (2010). Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 3, 275-283.

Louviere, J. J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of marketing research, 20(4), 350-367.

Lusk, J. L., & Briggeman, B. C. (2009). Food values. American journal of agricultural economics, 91(1), 184-196.

Matthies, E., & Merten, M. J. (2022). High-income Households—Damned to consume or free to engage in high-impact energy-saving behaviors? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 82, 101829.

Peterson, M., & Feldman, D. (2018). Citizen preferences for possible energy policies at the national and state levels. Energy Policy, 121, 80-91.

Raza, M. A., Khatri, K. L., Memon, M. A., Rafique, K., Haque, M. I. U., & Mirjat, N. H. (2022). Exploitation of Thar coal field for power generation in Pakistan: A way forward to sustainable energy future. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 40(4), 1173-1196.

Song, Z., Nedopil, C., Isaad, H., & Ghauri, M. B. (2023). Green Finance & Development Center, FISF Fudan University. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 278–286.

Tianyu, J., & Meng, L. (2020). Does education increase pro-environmental willingness to pay? Evidence from Chinese household survey. Journal of cleaner production, 275, 122713.

Tol, R. S. (2013). Targets for global climate policy: An overview. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 37(5), 911-928.

Van Schoubroeck, S., Chacon, L., Reynolds, A. M., Lavoine, N., Hakovirta, M., Gonzalez, R., Venditti, R. A. (2023). Environmental sustainability perception toward obvious recovered waste content in paper-based packaging: An online and in-person survey best-worst scaling experiment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 188, 106682.