7,936 rated or chosen profiles from 651 respondents, in up to 7 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.

About this table

Description	651 political, civil-society and academic elites in ten Latin American countries (2018 online survey) each chose between 2 hypothetical climate-mitigation treaties in up to 7 tasks; treaties varied in who makes the rules, conflict resolution, punishment, penalties for repeat violations, cost sharing and renegotiation interval.
Reference	Freire, D., Mignozzetti, U., & Skarbek, D. (2021). Institutional design and elite support for climate policies: Evidence from Latin American countries. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(2), 172-184.
DOI	10.1017/XPS.2020.19
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VTA5OA

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Forced choice of the treaty "that has the characteristics that you believe are best for your country" (no opt-out), up to 7 pairs per respondent. Ten countries pooled with cov_country and cov_elite_group (blank for 778 rows as in the source). Level text is the authors' English labels of a Spanish/Portuguese instrument. Randomization uniform with one restriction: Punishment = None never appears with repeated violations = Less penalty. Duplicate task records for 3 respondents collapsed; Qualtrics GPS coordinates and the location-derived country dropped.

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	651
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	7,936
Tasks per respondent (most)	7
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	6
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	climate energy environment
A profile represents	policy
Country	AR, BO, BR, CL, CO, CR, EC, MX, PA, PE
Language shown	es, pt
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	yes (stated by the source): Punishment = None never appears together with repeated violations = Less penalty
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead.

Outcomes:

choice	Please select the treaty that has the characteristics that you believe are best for your country. (translated) [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_conflict_resolutionattr_cost_distributionattr_punishmentattr_renegotiationattr_repeated_violationsattr_rule_makerschoicecov_countrycov_elite_groupidprofiletask

The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):

# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("freire_2021_climate_treaty", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("freire_2021_climate_treaty", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Freire_2020, title={Institutional Design and Elite Support for Climate Policies: Evidence from Latin American Countries}, volume={8}, ISSN={2052-2649}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.19}, DOI={10.1017/xps.2020.19}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Experimental Political Science}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Freire, Danilo and Mignozzetti, Umberto and Skarbek, David}, year={2020}, month=July, pages={172–184} }

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint v4.2
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/qkye-q530
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v4.2
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0