Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia
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.
|Date of creation:||2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200|
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www4.agr.gc.ca
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Anna Alberini & Paolo Rosato & Alberto Longo & Valentina Zanatta, 2005.
"Information and Willingness to Pay in a Contingent Valuation Study: The Value of S. Erasmo in the Lagoon of Venice,"
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 155-175.
- 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.
- 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 715-719, November.
- John Whitehead & Ju-Chin Huang & Glenn Blomquist & Richard Ready, 1998. "Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 107-116, January.
- John C. Whitehead & Glenn C. Blomquist & Richard C. Ready & Ju-Chin Huang, "undated". "Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Working Papers 9612, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
- Dominika Parry Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2005. "Valuing Air Quality in Poland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(2), pages 131-163, 02.
- R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
- Boyle, Kevin J. & Welsh, Michael P. & Bishop, Richard C., 1988. "Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: comment," MPRA Paper 31237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- 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.
- Silvia Banfi & Mehdi Farsi & Massimo Filippini & Martin Jakob, 2005. "Willingness to Pay for Energy-Saving Measures in Residential Buildings," CEPE Working paper series 05-41, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
- Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
- 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.
- Bente Halvorsen, 1996. "Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(4), pages 485-499, December.
- Macmillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Buckland, Steve, 1996. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Uncertain Environmental Gains," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 43(5), pages 519-533, November.
- Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
- Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2004. "Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 331-363, March.
- Jaeseung Lee & Trudy Cameron, 2008. "Popular Support for Climate Change Mitigation: Evidence from a General Population Mail Survey," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 223-248, October.
- 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.
- 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.
- Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.
- Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2005. "Individual option prices for climate change mitigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 283-301, February.
- Trudy Ann Cameron, 2002. "Individual Option Prices for Climate Change Mitigation," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2003-9, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 20 Jul 2002.
- Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. " Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 265-272, September.
- 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. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)