Eval-MAP2- Evaluating Germany’s Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Practice 2

Building on the Social-Ecological Panel (SÖP) established in the BMBF-funded project Eval-MAP, this research project pursued two goals: First, different adaptation and emission avoidance measures were investigated in terms of their acceptance and impact on private households. Second, the associated social impacts were analyzed. The research project extended the publicly available household panel data set (fdz.rwi-essen.de/mikrodaten.html) established in the previous Eval-MAP project by two additional survey waves to improve the basis for an evidence-based assessment of climate policy instruments, as well as climate change adaptation measures.

Learn more

Based on the panel data of both surveys, plenty of policy-relevant results have been obtained both with respect to adaptation and mitigation measures. With respect to flooding, for instance, these results have been published in a policy brief, as well as numerous papers.  First, the panel data set is used to assess the vulnerability of economically deprived households in Germany with respect to flooding and heat. Most importantly, the phenomenon of charity hazard is found to be prevalent: households expecting governmental aid in case of a flood take less precautionary measures and forego private insurance. This effect is particularly pronounced in areas of high flood risk. Moreover, evaluating public awareness campaigns on flood risk and insurance,  no causal effect of the campaigns on household behavior is found.  Summarizing the policy-relevant findings of the empirical literature on flood insurance, the project team suggests introducing a well-designed mandatory flood insurance scheme with risk-adjusted premia. Not least, the data gathered within the Eval-MAP2 project allowed for an in-depth assessment of the effects of Covid-19 exposure on the perception of climate change and climate policy. Despite the concerns about Corona, climate change remained an important issue: About 70% of the respondents saw no change in the importance of the topic in 2020.

Most relevant from a policy perspective is the result that the majority of respondents who received the question in the OE format would have accepted an additional increase of 2 cents in the EEG Levy, whereas only an increase of 1 cent per kWh would have been accepted by more than 50% of the re­spon­dents who received the respective question in the SBC format (see Figure). Based on these results, we conclude that the tolerance of the majority of consumers with respect to further increases in the support level of re­new­able energy technologies may be almost exhausted.

Andor, M., Frondel, M., Horvath, M. (2021):
Consequentiality, Elicitation Formats, and the Willingness To Pay for Green Electricity: Evidence from Germany. Land Economics 97 (3): 626-640.

Frondel, M., Gerster, A., Vance, C. (2020):
The Power of Mandatory Quality Disclosure: Evidence from the German Housing Market. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 7 (1): 181-208.

Frondel, M., Kaeding, M., Sommer, S. (2022):
Market Premia for Renewables in Germany: The Effect on Electricity Prices. Energy Economics 109: 105874.

Frondel, M., Sommer, S., Tomberg, L. (2021):
WTA-WTP Disparity: The Role of Perceived Realism of the Valuation Setting. Land Economics 97 (1): 196-206.

Simora, M., Frondel, M., Vance, C. (2020):
Do financial incentives increase the acceptance of power lines? Evidence from Germany. Regional Science and Urban Economics 85: 103575.