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
Sonia Akter () (Crawford School of Economics and Government, the Australian National University, Australia)
Jeff Bennett () (Crawford School of Economics and Government, the Australian National University, Australia)

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

Abstract

This study aims to show how Australian households perceive climate change and what they are prepared to do to reduce the harmful effects of climate change. A web-based survey in November 2008 asked approximately 600 New South Wales households about their willingness to pay additional household expenses caused by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) proposed by the Australian government. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), a widely used non-market valuation technique, was applied. Results of the study show there is a positive demand to mitigate climate change in Australia resulting from a wish to avoid climate change. Households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for climate change was, however, significantly curbed as households were uncertain about the extent of climate change and whether climate change policies are effective. Australian household support for the CPRS is influenced by schemes of other major greenhouse gas emitting countries (global co-operation). Only when people who didn’t answer the survey are assumed to value climate change mitigation the same as people who did answer the survey, do the benefits of the CPRS, as estimated by respondents’ WTP, exceed its costs. Key words: Contingent valuation, climate change, Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, willingness to pay, uncertainty, Australia

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://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR19.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School, Australian National University in its series Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports with number 0919.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Feb 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:0919

Contact details of provider:
Postal: JG Crawford Building #13, Australian National University ACT 0200
Web page: http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
More information through EDIRC

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

Related research
Keywords:

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. 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.
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. 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!]
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. 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:
  11. 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)
  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 2009-12-5.


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.