19,160 rated or chosen profiles from 1,916 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.

About this table

Description	Swiss citizens (n = 1,916, online panel, 2019) read a policy target in one of two green-economy contexts (finance or pesticides) and chose between pairs of reform proposals that varied who decides, how the sector reports, who monitors, and whether binding regulation follows; three forced choices per pair (referendum vote, responsiveness, effectiveness).
Reference	Kolcava, D., Rudolph, L., & Bernauer, T. (2021). Citizen preferences on private-public co-regulation in environmental governance: Evidence from Switzerland. Global Environmental Change, 68, 102226.
DOI	10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102226
Licence	CC BY 4.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18231150

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint_2). choice = referendum vote between Proposal A and B; choice_responsiveness = which design is more likely to yield a policy most citizens want; choice_effectiveness = which is more likely to reach the sector's target (forced choices, no opt-out, 5 pairs). Two green-economy contexts (finance, pesticides) pooled in trial_context with the sector named neutrally in the decision attribute; the separate vignette experiment is not built; N against the article not checked.

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

Design

Topic	climate energy environment, democracy institutions
A profile represents	policy
Country	CH
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice	Suppose you had to decide in a referendum today. Would you rather accept Proposal A or Proposal B? [choice, forced]
choice_effectiveness	Regardless of whether you are personally for or against the proposals: Is the design of Proposal A or Proposal B more likely to ensure that the financial industry achieves the goal of investing 70% less in climate-damaging firms? [choice, forced]
choice_responsiveness	Regardless of whether you are personally for or against the proposals: Is the design of Proposal A or Proposal B more likely to ensure that a policy is made and implemented that most citizens of Switzerland want? [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_decisionattr_lawattr_monitoringattr_reportchoicechoice_effectivenesschoice_responsivenessidprofiletasktrial_context

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("kolcava_2021_coregulation", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("kolcava_2021_coregulation", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Kolcava_2021, title={Citizen preferences on private-public co-regulation in environmental governance: Evidence from Switzerland}, volume={68}, ISSN={0959-3780}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102226}, DOI={10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102226}, journal={Global Environmental Change}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Kolcava, Dennis and Rudolph, Lukas and Bernauer, Thomas}, year={2021}, month=May, pages={102226} }

Respondents	1,916
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	19,160
Tasks per respondent (most)	5
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	4
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint_2 v1.4
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/hk97-wv30
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v1.4
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0

kolcava_2021_coregulation