IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eerhrr/94819.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Akter, Sonia
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

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 was 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Akter, Sonia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia," Research Reports 94819, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eerhrr:94819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/94819
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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, February.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2005. "Individual option prices for climate change mitigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 283-301, February.
    18. 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.
    19. 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)

    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:ags:eerhrr:94819. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/asanuau.html .

    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.