Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Are Hugs, Carrots and Sticks Essential for Energy Policy: A Study of Latvia’s National Energy and Climate Plan Cover

Are Hugs, Carrots and Sticks Essential for Energy Policy: A Study of Latvia’s National Energy and Climate Plan

Environmental and Climate Technologies
Volume 24 (2020): Issue 2 (September 2020)
By: Reinis Aboltins,  Dzintars Jaunzems,  Jelena Pubule and  Dagnija Blumberga  
Open Access
|Sep 2020

References

  1. [1] European Commission, The European Green Deal, (2019). [Online]. [Accessed 12.05.2020]. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. [2] European Commission, Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law), 2020. [Online]. [Accessed 12.05.2020]. Available: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39914/a-new-strategic-agenda-2019-2024-en.pdf.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. [3] Boulding K. E. Three Faces of Power. CA: Sage, Newbury Park, 1990.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. [4] Katre A., Tozzi A. Using hugs, carrots and sticks: How agents exercise power in the transition to community-owned energy systems in remote India. Energy Research and Social Science 2019:54:129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.00810.1016/j.erss.2019.04.008
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. [5] Marmefelt T. Human knowledge, rules, and the spontaneous evolution of society in the social thought of Darwin, Hayek, and Boulding. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization 2009:71:62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.02.01310.1016/j.jebo.2009.02.013
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. [6] Kesting S. Boulding’s welfare approach of communicative deliberation. Ecological Economics 2010:69:973–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.01010.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.010
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. [7] Beilock R. The impact of caring on exchange choices and efficiencies: a modification of Boulding’s three social organizers. The Journal of Socio-Economics 2000:29(3):263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00072-X10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00072-X
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. [8] Mahmoodi J., Prasanna A., Hille S., Patel M. K., Brosch T. Combining “carrot and stick” to incentivize sustainability in households. Energy Policy 2018:123:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.03710.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.037
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. [9] Rintamäki H., Rikkonen P., Tapio P. Carrot or stick: Impacts of alternative climate and energy policy scenarios on agriculture. Futures 2016:83:64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.03.00410.1016/j.futures.2016.03.004
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. [10] Van Den Bergh J. C. J. M., Ferrer-I-Carbonell A., Munda G. Alternative models of individual behaviour and implications for environmental policy. Ecological Economics 2000:32(1):43–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00088-9.10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00088-9
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. [11] Gardner G., Stern P. Environmental problems and human behaviour. Pearson Learning Solutions, 2002.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. [12] Ophuls W. Levithian or Oblivion? in: Towar. a Steady State Econ., 1973.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. [13] Abreu I. M., Oliveira R., Lopes J. Attitudes and Practices of Homeowners in the Decision-making Process for Building Energy Renovation. Procedia Engineering 2017:172:52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.01610.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.016
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. [14] Rosenow J., Kern F., Rogge K. The need for comprehensive and well targeted instrument mixes to stimulate energy transitions: The case of energy efficiency policy. Energy Resource & Social Science 2017:33:95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.01310.1016/j.erss.2017.09.013
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. [15] Latvian National energy and climate plan. Enviroprojekts SIA, Latvijas Nacionālais enerģētikas un klimata plāns 2021. – 2030. gadam, Stratēģiskais ietekmes uz vidi novērtējums, Vides pārskats, 2019. https://em.gov.lv/files/attachments/LNEKP_SIVN_12.2019.doc. (In Latvian).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. [16] Mac Domhnaill C., Ryan L. Towards renewable electricity in Europe: Revisiting the determinants of renewable electricity in the European Union. Renewable Energy 2020:154:955–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.08410.1016/j.renene.2020.03.084
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. [17] Del Río P., Cerdá E. The missing link: The influence of instruments and design features on the interactions between climate and renewable electricity policies. Energy Research & Social Science 2017:33:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.01010.1016/j.erss.2017.09.010
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. [18] Bao X., Zhao W., Wang X., Tan Z. Impact of policy mix concerning renewable portfolio standards and emissions trading on electricity market. Renewable Energy 2019:135:761–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.12.00510.1016/j.renene.2018.12.005
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. [19] Wang G., Zhang Q., Li Y., Mclellan B. C., Pan X. Corrective regulations on renewable energy certificates trading: Pursuing an equity-efficiency trade-off. Energy Economics 2019:80:970–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.03.00810.1016/j.eneco.2019.03.008
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. [20] Bento A. M., Garg T., Kaffine D. Emissions reductions or green booms? General equilibrium effects of a renewable portfolio standard. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2018:90:78–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.05.00610.1016/j.jeem.2018.05.006
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. [21] Bolkesjø T. F., Eltvig P. T., Nygaard E. An Econometric Analysis of Support Scheme Effects on Renewable Energy Investments in Europe. Energy Procedia 2014:58:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.10.40110.1016/j.egypro.2014.10.401
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. [22] Choi G., Huh S. Y., Heo E., Lee C. Y. Prices versus quantities: Comparing economic efficiency of feed-in tariff and renewable portfolio standard in promoting renewable electricity generation. Energy Policy 2018:113:239–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.00810.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.008
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. [23] Herbes C., Rilling B., MacDonald S., Boutin N., Bigerna S. Are voluntary markets effective in replacing state-led support for the expansion of renewables? – A comparative analysis of voluntary green electricity markets in the UK, Germany, France and Italy. Energy Policy 2020:141:111473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.11147310.1016/j.enpol.2020.111473
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. [24] Barbose G., Bird L., Heeter J., Flores-Espino F., Wiser R. Costs and benefits of renewables portfolio standards in the United States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015:52:523–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.17510.1016/j.rser.2015.07.175
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. [25] Chapman A. J., McLellan B., Tezuka T. Residential solar PV policy: An analysis of impacts, successes and failures in the Australian case. Renewable Energy 2016:86:1265–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.09.06110.1016/j.renene.2015.09.061
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. [26] Polzin F., Migendt M., Täube F. A., von Flotow P. Public policy influence on renewable energy investments-A panel data study across OECD countries. Energy Policy 2015:80:2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.02610.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.026
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. [27] Aune F. R., Dalen H. M., Hagem C. Implementing the EU renewable target through green certificate markets. Energy Economics 2012:34(4):992–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.07.006.10.1016/j.eneco.2011.07.006
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. [28] Bistline J., Santen N., Young D. The economic geography of variable renewable energy and impacts of trade formulations for renewable mandates. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2019:106:79–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.026.10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.026
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. [29] Amundsen E. S., Bye T. Simultaneous use of black, green, and white certificate systems. The Energy Journal 2018:39. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.39.4.eamu.10.5547/01956574.39.4.eamu
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. [30] Xie M., Li C., Wang Y., Wang J. Comprehensive utilization of renewable energy for new civil buildings in Shanghai. Energy Procedia 2018:152:336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.09.14410.1016/j.egypro.2018.09.144
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. [31] Marino C., Nucara A., Pietrafesa M., Pudano A. An energy self-sufficient public building using integrated renewable sources and hydrogen storage. Energy 2013:57:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.05310.1016/j.energy.2013.01.053
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. [32] Galatioto A., Ricciu R., Salem T., Kinab E. Energy and economic analysis on retrofit actions for Italian public historic buildings. Energy 2019:176:58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.16710.1016/j.energy.2019.03.167
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. [33] Cabeza L. F., de Gracia A., Pisello A. L. Integration of renewable technologies in historical and heritage buildings: A review. Energy and Buildings 2018:177:96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.07.05810.1016/j.enbuild.2018.07.058
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  34. [34] Aivars A., Zandeckis A., Timma L., Blumberga D., Rochas C. Possibilities for Utilization of Solar Thermal Energy in Multi-Family Buildings in Latvia. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2011:6(1):138–146. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10145-011-0020-410.2478/v10145-011-0020-4
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  35. [35] Jimenez-Bescos C., Oregi X. Implementing User Behaviour on Dynamic Building Simulations for Energy Consumption. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019:23(3):308–318. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2019-009710.2478/rtuect-2019-0097
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  36. [36] Miezis M., Zvaigznitis K., Stancioff N., Soeftestad L. Climate change and buildings energy efficiency – The key role of residents. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2016:17(1):30–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/rtuect-2016-000410.1515/rtuect-2016-0004
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. [37] Alanne K., Liimatainen H. Design implications of the electrification of passenger vehicle stock on renewable energy integration in Finnish apartment buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society 2019:47:101507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101507.10.1016/j.scs.2019.101507
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  38. [38] Huang J., Fan J., Furbo S., Li L. Solar water heating systems applied to highrise buildings-lessons from experiences in China. Energies 2019:12(16):3078. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1216307810.3390/en12163078
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  39. [39] Fiaschi D., Bandinelli R., Conti S. A case study for energy issues of public buildings and utilities in a small municipality: Investigation of possible improvements and integration with renewables. Applied Energy 2012:97:101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.00810.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.008
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  40. [40] Sussman R., Tan L. Q., Kormos C. E. Behavioral interventions for sustainable transportation: an overview of programs and guide for practitioners, in: Transport and Energy Research, Elsevier, 2020:315–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-815965-1.00014-410.1016/B978-0-12-815965-1.00014-4
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  41. [41] Bamberg S. Is a stage model a useful approach to explain car drivers’ willingness to use public transportation? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2007:37:1757–1783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00236.x10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00236.x
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  42. [42] Bamberg S., Schmidt P. Choice of Travel Mode in the Theory of Planned Behavior : The Roles of Past Behavior, Habit, and Reasoned Action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2010:25(3):175–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2503_0110.1207/S15324834BASP2503_01
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  43. [43] Wang S., Wang J., Yang F. From willingness to action: Do push-pull-mooring factors matter for shifting to green transportation? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2020:79:102242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.10224210.1016/j.trd.2020.102242
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  44. [44] Carrus G., Passafaro P., Bonnes M. Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2008:28:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.00310.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.003
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  45. [45] Ercan T., Onat N. C., Tatari O., Mathias J. D. Public transportation adoption requires a paradigm shift in urban development structure. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017:142(4):1789–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.10910.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.109
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  46. [46] Nyborg K. The Impact of Public Policy on Social and Moral Norms: Some Examples. J. Consum. Policy. 2003:26:259–277. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:102562222320710.1023/A:1025622223207
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  47. [47] Andersson C., Stage J. Direct and indirect effects of waste management policies on household waste behaviour: The case of Sweden. Waste Management 2018:76:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.03810.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.03829605305
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  48. [48] Bel G. Effects of unit-based pricing on household waste collection demand: A meta-regression analysis. Resource and Energy Economics 2016:44:169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.03.00310.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.03.003
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  49. [49] Arvidsson A., Stage J. Technology-neutral green procurement in practice-an example from Swedish waste management. Waste Management & Research: the Journal of a Sustainable Circular Economy 2012:30:519–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X1243756610.1177/0734242X1243756622446970
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  50. [50] Abbott A., Nandeibam S., O’Shea L. Explaining the variation in household recycling rates across the UK. Ecological Economics 2011:70:2214–2223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.02810.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.028
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  51. [51] Hage O., Sandberg K., Söderholm P., Berglund C. The regional heterogeneity of household recycling: a spatial-econometric analysis of Swedish plastic packing waste. Letters in Spatial and Resource Science 2018:11:245–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-017-0200-310.1007/s12076-017-0200-3
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  52. [52] Czajkowski M., Hanley N., Nyborg K. Social Norms, Morals and Self-interest as Determinants of Pro-environment Behaviours: The Case of Household Recycling. Environmental and Resource Economics 2017:66:647–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9964-310.1007/s10640-015-9964-3
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  53. [53] Dijkgraaf E. Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: the case of the Netherlands. 2004:26(4):353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2004.01.00110.1016/j.reseneeco.2004.01.001
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  54. [54] Leclerc S. H., Badami M. G. Extended producer responsibility for E-waste management: Policy drivers and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020:251:119657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.11965710.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119657
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2020-0075 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8837 | Journal ISSN: 1691-5208
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 309 - 324
Published on: Sep 23, 2020
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
Energy and climate plan,
energy policy,
hugs,
carrots and sticks,
policy instruments
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2020 Reinis Aboltins, Dzintars Jaunzems, Jelena Pubule, Dagnija Blumberga, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 24 (2020): Issue 2 (September 2020)Next article