The Demand for Voluntary Carbon Dioxide Removal: Experimental Evidence from an Afforestation Project in Germany

Lara Bartels; Martin Kesternich; Andreas Löschel

doi:10.3368/le.100.4.070523-0060R1

Article Figures & Data

Figures

Tables
Additional Files

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 1
Extensive and Intensive Margin Effects by Treatments: (a) Average Amount of Contributions (€); (b) Amount of Positive Contributions (€) (Intensive Margin); (c) Share of Subjects Willing to Make a Positive Contribution (Extensive Margin)
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 2
Relationship between Distance and Main Outcomes
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 3
Survey Results

View popup

Table 1

Extensive and Intensive Margin Effects by Treatments

	Hurdle (1)		Hurdle (2)
	First Stage	Second Stage	First Stage	Second Stage
Co-benefits	−0.24	−2.14	−0.23	−1.14
	(0.21)	(264)	(0.21)	(2.36)
Age			0.00	0.17^*
			(0.01)	(0.07)
Female			−0.19	−2.60
			(0.22)	(2.96)
Constant	0.52^***	6.24^*	0.63+	−0.31
	(0.15)	(2.67)	(0.33)	(4.73)
Constant	2.24^***		2.17^***
	(0.15)		(0.14)
Observations	160		160

Note: The table shows the corresponding regression analysis based on two (with and without further control variables) two-stage hurdle models. The first stage consists of probit regression models (where the dependent variable is equal to one for positive donations). The second stage consists of truncated linear regression models (where the continuous dependent variable is the donation amount, assuming donation is made). Robust standard errors are in parentheses.

↵* p < 0.05;
** p < 0.01;
↵*** p < 0.001.

View popup

Table 2

Relationship between Distance to Sink in Minutes and Main Outcomes

	Hurdle
	First Stage	Second Stage
Treatment: co-benefits	−0.17 (0.24)	−1.12 (2.32)
Age	−0.01 (0.01)	0.17^* (0.07)
Female	−0.22 (0.26)	−2.19 (2.88)
Time	−0.05 (0.04)	−0.37 (0.41)
Risk	0.04 (0.06)	0.80 (0.62)
Paternalism	−0.08 (0.05)	−0.54 (0.56)
Trust	0.06 (0.05)	0.31 (0.51)
Complexity	0.03 (0.05)	−0.19 (0.44)
Forest coverage	0.00 (0.03)	−0.23 (0.23)
Recreational space	0.04 (0.11)	−1.61 (1.02)
Agricultural space	−0.01 (0.03)	−0.34 (0.25)
Rurality	−0.02 (0.01)	−0.14 (0.14)
Wind energy	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Habitat density	0.00⁺ (0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Distance category (travel time)
First quartile (0–137.2 min)	—	—
Second quartile (137.3–197.1 min)	−1.12^* (0.46)	−1.76 (4.52)
Third quartile (197.2–329.5 min)	−0.19 (0.42)	0.56 (4.06)
Fourth quartile (329.6–602.6 min)	−0.69 (0.46)	4.19 (5.04)
Constant	3.06 (2.67)	27.81 (22.03)
Constant hurdle	2.05^*** (0.13)
Observations	148	148

Note: The table entails a regression analysis based on two-stage hurdle models. The first stage consists of probit regression models (where the dependent variable is equal to one for positive donations and zero otherwise). The second stage consists of truncated linear regression models (where the continuous dependent variable is the donation amount, assuming donation is made). Co-benefits indicate the treatment variation that introduces the additional information on co-benefits. Robust standard errors are in parentheses.