IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v62y2017icp302-311.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to pay for emissions reduction: Application of choice modeling under uncertainty and different management options

Author

Listed:
  • Williams, Galina
  • Rolfe, John

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a choice modeling survey of households in Queensland, Australia to assess values for reductions in national greenhouse emissions by 2020. The study is novel in two main ways. First, labeled alternatives were used to assess whether the types of management options for reducing net emissions (green power, energy efficient technologies or carbon capture) are significant in understanding preferences for reducing emissions. Second, the importance of the level and type of uncertainty involved in reductions is tested. The types of uncertainty include (1) the uncertainty of achieving emissions reduction and (2) the uncertainty of international participation as the percentage of total global emissions covered by international agreements. The results of this survey identified how choice responses vary when the level of uncertainty associated with emissions reduction options is included within choice alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Williams, Galina & Rolfe, John, 2017. "Willingness to pay for emissions reduction: Application of choice modeling under uncertainty and different management options," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 302-311.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:62:y:2017:i:c:p:302-311
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988317300130
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2015. "Do Respondents Adjust Their Expected Utility in the Presence of an Outcome Certainty Attribute in a Choice Experiment?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 125-142, January.
    2. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    3. Drazen Prelec & George Loewenstein, 1991. "Decision Making Over Time and Under Uncertainty: A Common Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(7), pages 770-786, July.
    4. Glenk, Klaus & Colombo, Sergio, 2013. "Modelling Outcome-Related Risk in Choice Experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1-20.
    5. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-17.
    6. Diamond, William D, 1988. " The Effect of Probability and Consequence Levels on the Focus of Consumer Judgments in Risky Situations," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 280-283, September.
    7. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F. & Levy, Alan & Russell, Matthew, 2001. "US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 917-925, September.
    8. Klaus Glenk & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "How Sure Can You Be? A Framework for Considering Delivery Uncertainty in Benefit Assessments Based on Stated Preference Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 25-46, February.
    9. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    10. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    11. Carson, Richard T. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Wei, Edward, 2010. "Alternative Australian climate change plans: The public's views," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 902-911, February.
    12. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. " The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    13. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    14. Bjorner, Thomas Bue & Hansen, L.G.Lars Garn & Russell, Clifford S., 2004. "Environmental labeling and consumers' choice--an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 411-434, May.
    15. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    16. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
    17. Warwick J. McKibbin & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 2002. "The Role of Economics in Climate Change Policy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 107-129, Spring.
    18. Adam Daigneault & Steve Newbold, 2009. "Climate Response Uncertainty and the Unexpected Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions," NCEE Working Paper Series 200806, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Mar 2009.
    19. Stephen Newbold & Adam Daigneault, 2009. "Climate Response Uncertainty and the Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 351-377, November.
    20. Bruce G. S. Hardie & Eric J. Johnson & Peter S. Fader, 1993. "Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 378-394.
    21. Anna Alberini & Alan Krupnick & Maureen Cropper & Nathalie Simon & Joseph Cook, 2002. "The Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Comparison of the United States and Canada," CESifo Working Paper Series 668, CESifo Group Munich.
    22. Roberts, David C. & Boyer, Tracy A. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2008. "Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 584-593, July.
    23. Dan Rigby & Francisco Alcon & Michael Burton, 2010. "Supply uncertainty and the economic value of irrigation water," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 37(1), pages 97-117, March.
    24. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    25. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Leiserowitz, Anthony A., 2013. "Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 617-625.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan & Bigano, Andrea, 2018. "Policy- v. individual heterogeneity in the benefits of climate change mitigation: Evidence from a stated-preference survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 565-575.
    2. Bujosa, Angel & Torres, Cati & Riera, Antoni, 2018. "Framing Decisions in Uncertain Scenarios: An Analysis of Tourist Preferences in the Face of Global Warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 36-42.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choice modeling; Greenhouse gas emissions reduction; Uncertainty; Willingness to pay;

    JEL classification:

    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:62:y:2017:i:c:p:302-311. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.