Impact of policy design and elicitation method on carbon tax acceptability

Carbon taxes are among the most effective instruments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet their adoption remains politically sensitive. Public acceptability is crucial for the feasibility of such taxes, but evidence on what drives acceptance has been inconsistent. This inconsistency stems not only from differences in national context but also from the way researchers <b>measure acceptability</b> and how they <b>design policy scenarios</b>.This study addresses these challenges by systematically comparing multiple elicitation methods and policy designs within a single setting. We conducted a <b>within-subject survey with 1,415 respondents in Austria</b>, deliberately holding constant contextual factors such as sample, timing, and national context. Respondents evaluated fuel tax increases through a range of instruments, including:Binary yes/no approval questionsLikert-scale ratingsWillingness-to-pay formats (annual and per liter)An Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint experiment<b>Key findings:</b><b>Method matters.</b> Explicit formats (e.g., binary yes/no questions) consistently produce lower acceptance rates, while implicit, model-based approaches yield higher estimates.<b>Preferences vs. tolerance.</b> The average <i>preferred</i> tax level is €0.25 per liter, but the <i>maximum acceptable</i> level is much higher at €0.66, suggesting greater scope for ambitious policies.<b>Revenue recycling is essential.</b> Acceptability drops sharply when revenue use is unspecified but increases significantly when revenues are earmarked for rebates or public goods such as public transport.<b>Implications:</b>For <b>policymakers</b>, careful policy design, especially transparent and targeted revenue recycling, can substantially increase public support.For <b>researchers</b>, methodological choices are not neutral. The elicitation format itself can shape acceptability outcomes, complicating cross-study comparisons and meta-analyses. Multi-method designs provide a more robust picture.By clarifying how survey methods and policy features interact, this research helps bridge the gap between academic evidence and political practice. It offers both scholars and decision-makers a more reliable basis for evaluating the political feasibility of carbon taxation and contributes to designing climate policies that are both effective and publicly acceptable.