IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Public preferences for carbon tax attributes

Listed author(s):
  • Gevrek, Z.Eylem
  • Uyduranoglu, Ayse
Registered author(s):

    The impacts of climate change are already visible throughout the world. Recognizing the threats posed by climate change, the Durban Platform, the 17th Session of the Conference of Parties (COP 17), underscores that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation and ambitious action by all countries. A crucial starting point for the design of effective and publicly acceptable policies is to explore public preferences for climate policy instruments. Using a choice experiment, this study investigates public preferences for carbon tax attributes in a developing country context. The results account for heterogeneity in preferences and show that Turkish people prefer a carbon tax with a progressive cost distribution rather than one with a regressive cost distribution. The private cost has a negative effect on the probability of choosing the tax. Earmarking carbon tax revenues increases the public acceptability of the tax. Moreover, there is a preference for a carbon tax that promotes public awareness of climate change.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915003110
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 118 (2015)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 186-197

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:118:y:2015:i:c:p:186-197
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.020
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

    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.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Martin L. Weitzman, 1974. "Prices vs. Quantities," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
    2. Mark A. Cohen & W. Kip Viscusi, 2012. "The Role Of Information Disclosure In Climate Mitigation Policy," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(04), pages 1-21.
    3. Zhang, ZhongXiang & Baranzini, Andrea, 2004. "What do we know about carbon taxes? An inquiry into their impacts on competitiveness and distribution of income," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 507-518, March.
    4. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
    5. Anwar Shah & Bjorn Larsen, 2014. "Carbon taxes, the greenhouse effect, and developing countries," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 15(1), pages 353-402, May.
    6. Arief Yusuf & Budy Resosudarmo, 2015. "On the distributional impact of a carbon tax in developing countries: the case of Indonesia," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(1), pages 131-156, January.
    7. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Alan Krupnick & Elina Lampi & Åsa Löfgren & Ping Qin & Susie Chun & Thomas Sterner, 2012. "Paying for Mitigation: A Multiple Country Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 326-340.
    8. Stavins, Robert, 1997. "Policy Instruments for Climate Change: How Can National Governments Address a Global Problem?," Discussion Papers dp-97-11, Resources For the Future.
    9. Ertör-Akyazı, Pınar & Adaman, Fikret & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2012. "Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 309-320.
    10. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    12. Runar Brannlund & Lars Persson, 2012. "To tax, or not to tax: preferences for climate policy attributes," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 704-721, November.
    13. Kevin A. Hassett & Aparna Mathur & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2009. "The Incidence of a U.S. Carbon Tax: A Lifetime and Regional Analysis," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 155-178.
    14. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2002. "Prices versus quantities with incomplete enforcement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 435-454, September.
    15. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers, 2013. "Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro-Environmental Taxes," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Beck, Marisa & Rivers, Nicholas & Wigle, Randall & Yonezawa, Hidemichi, 2015. "Carbon tax and revenue recycling: Impacts on households in British Columbia," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 40-69.
    17. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    18. Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2009. "Designing a Carbon Tax to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 63-83, Winter.
    19. Dresner, Simon & Dunne, Louise & Clinch, Peter & Beuermann, Christiane, 2006. "Social and political responses to ecological tax reform in Europe: an introduction to the special issue," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 895-904, May.
    20. Godal, Odd & Holtsmark, Bjart, 2001. "Greenhouse gas taxation and the distribution of costs and benefits: the case of Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 653-662, June.
    21. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, 05.
    22. Adaman, Fikret & KaralI, Nihan & Kumbaroglu, Gürkan & Or, Ilhan & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2011. "What determines urban households' willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 689-698, February.
    23. Erdogdu, Erkan, 2014. "Motor fuel prices in Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 143-153.
    24. Kallbekken, Steffen & Aasen, Marianne, 2010. "The demand for earmarking: Results from a focus group study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2183-2190, September.
    25. Michel Elzen & Jos Olivier & Niklas Höhne & Greet Janssens-Maenhout, 2013. "Countries’ contributions to climate change: effect of accounting for all greenhouse gases, recent trends, basic needs and technological progress," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 397-412, November.
    26. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    27. Michael E. Porter & Claas van der Linde, 1995. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 97-118, Fall.
    28. Bristow, Abigail L. & Wardman, Mark & Zanni, Alberto M. & Chintakayala, Phani K., 2010. "Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1824-1837, July.
    29. Dissou, Yazid & Eyland, Terry, 2011. "Carbon control policies, competitiveness, and border tax adjustments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 556-564, May.
    30. Kallbekken, Steffen & Sælen, Håkon, 2011. "Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2966-2973, May.
    31. Dissou, Yazid & Siddiqui, Muhammad Shahid, 2014. "Can carbon taxes be progressive?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 88-100.
    32. Louviere, Jordan J & Hensher, David A, 1983. " Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 348-361, December.
    33. Sclen, Håkon & Kallbekken, Steffen, 2011. "A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2181-2190, September.
    34. Pinar Ertor Akyazi & Fikret Adaman & Begum Ozkaynak & Unal Zenginobuz, 2012. "Citizens’ Preferences over Nuclear and Renewable Energy Sources: Evidence from Turkey," Working Papers 2012/01, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    35. William D. Nordhaus, 2011. "Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon: Background and Results from the RICE-2011 Model," NBER Working Papers 17540, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    36. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2005. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: some new evidence," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:118:y:2015:i:c:p:186-197. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.