IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v89y2013iv1p767-781.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making or Buying Environmental Public Goods: Do Consumers Care?

Author

Listed:
  • Douadia Bougherara
  • Sandrine Costa
  • Mario Teisl

Abstract

Firms may voluntarily abate pollution using one of two options: internalizing their own external effects and incurring abatement costs (“making”), or delegating environmental protection by purchasing offsets (“buying”). We aim to elicit consumers’ willingness to pay for producers’ use of the “making” option as compared to the “buying” option, controlling for spatial effects (joint local public goods), and level of greenhouse gas emissions. Using a stated-choice survey of 722 respondents, we find consumers are more willing to pay for a “making” policy. Consumers do significantly care for the producers’ use of offsets when the level of local externalities is controlled for.

Suggested Citation

  • Douadia Bougherara & Sandrine Costa & Mario Teisl, 2013. "Making or Buying Environmental Public Goods: Do Consumers Care?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 767-781.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:89:y:2013:iv:1:p:767-781
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/89/4/767
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Costanigro & Dawn Thilmany McFadden & Stephan Kroll & Gretchen Nurse, 2011. "An in‐store valuation of local and organic apples: the role of social desirability," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 465-477, September.
    2. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    3. Yuko Onozaka & Dawn Thilmany Mcfadden, 2011. "Does Local Labeling Complement or Compete with Other Sustainable Labels? A Conjoint Analysis of Direct and Joint Values for Fresh Produce Claim," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(3), pages 689-702.
    4. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    5. MacKerron, George J. & Egerton, Catrin & Gaskell, Christopher & Parpia, Aimie & Mourato, Susana, 2009. "Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1372-1381, April.
    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. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    2. Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2018. "Controlling an Invasive Species through Consumption: The Case of Lionfish as an Impure Public Good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 74-79.
    3. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P., 2016. "Public preferences for the design of biodiversity offset policies in Australia," Working Papers 231533, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:uwp:landec:v:89:y:2013:iv:1:p:767-781. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.