Abstract
Assessing the Willingness to Pay (WTP) of the general public for climate change mitigation programmes enables governments to understand how much taxpayers are willing to support the implementation of such programs. This paper contributes to the literature on the WTP for climate change mitigation programmes by investigating, in addition to global benefits, the ancillary benefits of climate change mitigation. It does so by considering local and personal benefits arising from climate change policies. The Contingent Valuation Method is used to elicit the WTP for ancillary and global benefits of climate mitigation policies in the Basque Country, Spain. Results show that WTP estimates are 53–73% higher when ancillary benefits are considered.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alfsen KH, Brendemoen A, Glomsrød S (1992) Benefits of climate policies: some tentative calculations. Discussion paper no. 69, Central Bureau of Statistics, Oslo
Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Shuman H (1993) Report of NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601–4614
Ayres RU, Walter J (1991) The greenhouse effect: damages, costs and abatement. Environ Resour Econ 1: 237–270
Bannon B, DeBell M, Krosnick J, Kopp R, Aldhous P (2007) Americans’ evaluation of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. National Press Club, Washington, DC
Barker T, Johnstone N, O’Shea T (1993) The CEC carbon/energy tax and secondary transport-related benefits, energy-environment-economy modelling discussion paper no. 5. University of Cambridge, Cambridge
Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day BH (2002) Economic valuation with stated preferences techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2006) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 34(9): 1004–1014
Berk R, Fovell R (1999) Public perceptions of climate change: a ‘willingness to pay’ assessment. Clim Chang 41: 413–446
Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Weimer DL (2004) Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples. J Environ Econ Manag 47: 331–363
Blomquist GC, Whitehead JC (1998) Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 20: 179–196
BG (2008) Basque plan to Combat climate change 2008–2012. Basque Government
Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Palmer K, Paul A, Toman M, Bloyd C (2003) Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. J Environ Econ Manag 45: 650–673
Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental econoimcs. Valuing environmental changes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 821–936
Chib S, Greenberg E (1998) Analysis of multivariate probit models. Biometrika 85: 347–361
Complainville C, Martins JO (1994) NOX/SOX emissions and carbon abatement, OECD Working paper, No. 151. Paris
Danielson L, Hoban TJ, Van Houtven G, Whitehead JC (1995) Measuring the benefits of local public goods: environmental quality in Gaston county. North Carol Appl Econ 27: 1253–1260
Dowlatabadi H, Morgan MG (1993) A model framework for integrated studies of the climate problem. Energy Policy 21: 209–221
Euskobarometro (2008) Estudio periódico de la opinión pública vasca. http://www.ehu.es/cpvweb/euskobarometro. Accessed on 01.10.2008
EUSTAT (2008) Basque Institute of Statistics. Available at. http://www.eustat.es. Accessed on 01.10.2008
Freeman MA III (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. 2. Reources for the Future, Washington, p 491
Fundación BBVA (2008) Percepciones y actitudes de los españoles hacia el calentamiento global. Available at. http://www.fbbva.es. Accessed on 01.10.2008
Greene WH (2007) LIMDEP version 9.0 user’s manual. Econometric Software, New York
Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation information with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66: 332–341
Heintz RJ, Tol RSJ (1996) Secondary Bene−ts of climate control policies: implications for the global environmental facility; CSERGE working paper GEC 96–17. University of East Anglia, Norwich
Hidano N, Kato T (2007) Economic evaluation of anti-global warming policies: determining variability of WTP values
Hoehn JP, Loomis JB (1993) Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. J Environ Econ Manag 25: 56–75
Hoyos D, Mariel P, Fernandez-Macho J (2009) The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: some empirical evidence. Ecol Econ 68: 2372–2381
INE (2008) Spanish National Statistics Institute. http://www.ine.es. Accessed on 01.10.2008
IPCC: (2001) Climate change 2001. Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
IPCC: (2007) Climate change 2007. Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper ML, Simon N, O’Brien B, Goeree R, Heintzelman M (2002) Age, health, and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. J Risk Uncertain 24: 161–186
Layton DF, Brown G (2000) Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82: 616–624
Li H, Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Weimer DL (2004) Would developing country commitments affect US households’ support for a modified Kyoto Protocol?. Ecol Econ 48: 329–343
Li H, Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Weimer DL (2005) Testing for budget constraint effects in a national advisory referendum survey on the Kyoto protocol. J Agric Resour Econ 30: 350–366
Longo A, Markandya A, Petrucci M (2008) The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy. Ecol Econ 67: 140–152
Maddison D (1995) A cost-benefit analysis of slowing climate change. Energy Policy 23: 337–346
Markandya A, Rübbelke DTG (2004) Ancillary benefits of climate policy. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie Stat 224: 488–503
Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. RFF Press, Washington
Nomura N, Akai M (2004) Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl Energy 78: 453–463
Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge
OECD: (2000) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Washington
Olsthoorn X, Amann M, Bartonova A, Clench-Aas J, Cofala J, Dorland K, Guerreiro C, Hendriksen JF, Jansen H, Larsen S (1999) Cost benefit analysis of European air quality targets for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, fine and suspended particulate matter in cities. Environ Resour Econ 14: 333–351
Park T, Loomis J (1996) Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses. Environ Res Econ 7: 149–162
Payne JW, Schkade DA, Desvousges WH, Aultman C (2000) Valuation of multiple environmental programs. J Risk Uncertain 21: 95–115
Pearce D (2000) Policy framework for the ancillary benefits of climate change policies. Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Washington, pp 517–560
Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 68: 210–220
Poe GL, Welsh MP, Champ PA (1997) Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Econ 73: 255–267
Popp D (2001) Altruism and the demand for environmental quality. Land Econ 77(3): 339–349
Roe B, Teisl MF, Levy A, Russell M (2001) US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 29: 917–925
Rübbelke DTG (2002) International climate policy to combat global warming: an analysis of the ancillary benefits of reducing carbon emissions. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham
Tseng W, Chen C, Chang C, Chu Y (2009) Estimating the economic impact of climate change on infectious diseases: a case study on dengue fever in Taiwan. Clim Chang 92: 123–140
van den Bergh JCJM (2010) Safe climate policy is affordable—12 reasons. Clim Chang 101(3–4): 339–385
Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manag 73: 317–331
Witzke HP, Urfei G (2001) Willingness to pay for environmental protection in Germany: coping with the regional dimension. Reg Stud 35(3): 207–214
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Longo, A., Hoyos, D. & Markandya, A. Willingness to Pay for Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation. Environ Resource Econ 51, 119–140 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9491-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9491-9