This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Akter, Sonia
Bennett, Jeff

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The study aims to reveal Australian households’ perceptions of climate change and their preferences for climate change mitigation actions. A web-based survey was conducted in November 2008 in which about 600 New South Wales households were asked for their willingness to bear extra household expenditure to support the ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)’ as proposed by the Australian government. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), a widely used non-market valuation technique, was applied using the single bounded dichotomous choice elicitation format. Results of the study demonstrate that, currently, there is a positive demand for climate change mitigation action in Australia. The main motivation for this positive demand stems from a desire to avoid climate change. However, society’s willingness to pay (WTP) for climate change mitigation is shown to be significantly curbed by uncertainties regarding the extent of climate change and the effectiveness of climate change policy. Global cooperation (major greenhouse gas emitting countries implementing similar scheme) plays an important role in determining Australian households’ support for the CPRS. Only when cooperation is assumed, do the benefits of the CPRS, as estimated by respondents’ WTP, exceed its costs.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/47936
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia with number 47936.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:47936

Contact details of provider:
Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, APSEG, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: (02) 6125 6564
Email:
Web page: http://www4.agr.gc.ca
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).

Related research
Keywords: Contingent valuation; climate change; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; willingness to pay; uncertainty; Australia;

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. John Whitehead & Ju-Chin Huang & Glenn Blomquist & Richard Ready, 1998. "Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 107-116, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Richard C. Ready & Dayuan Hu, 1995. "Statistical Approaches to the Fat Tail Problem for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 491-499. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Anna Alberini & Paolo Rosato & Alberto Longo & Valentina Zanatta, 2004. "Information and Willingness to Pay in a Contingent Valuation Study: The Value of S. Erasmo in the Lagoon of Venice," Working Papers 2004.19, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. [Downloadable!]
  6. Banfi, Silvia & Farsi, Mehdi & Filippini, Massimo & Jakob, Martin, 2008. "Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 503-516, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. " Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(2), pages 265-72, September.
  8. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," The Journal of Socio-Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2005. "Individual option prices for climate change mitigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 283-301, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  10. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Batley, S. L. & Colbourne, D. & Fleming, P. D. & Urwin, P., 2001. "Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 479-487, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Kenyon, Wendy & Nevin, Ceara, 2001. "The use of economic and participatory approaches to assess forest development: a case study in the Ettrick Valley," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1-2), pages 69-80, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Mary Riddel & W. Shaw, 2006. "A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 131-150, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS is not the only service displaying RePEc data. Choose on RePEc which service fits your needs best.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-26.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.