Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 119–140 | Cite as

Willingness to Pay for Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation

  • Alberto Longo
  • David Hoyos
  • Anil Markandya
Article

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.

Keywords

Willingness to Pay Contingent valuation Ancillary benefits Climate change 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

Q51 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alfsen KH, Brendemoen A, Glomsrød S (1992) Benefits of climate policies: some tentative calculations. Discussion paper no. 69, Central Bureau of Statistics, OsloGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Shuman H (1993) Report of NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601–4614Google Scholar
  3. Ayres RU, Walter J (1991) The greenhouse effect: damages, costs and abatement. Environ Resour Econ 1: 237–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bannon B, DeBell M, Krosnick J, Kopp R, Aldhous P (2007) Americans’ evaluation of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. National Press Club, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day BH (2002) Economic valuation with stated preferences techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2006) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 34(9): 1004–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berk R, Fovell R (1999) Public perceptions of climate change: a ‘willingness to pay’ assessment. Clim Chang 41: 413–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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: 331–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blomquist GC, Whitehead JC (1998) Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 20: 179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. BG (2008) Basque plan to Combat climate change 2008–2012. Basque GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  12. 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: 650–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental econoimcs. Valuing environmental changes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 821–936Google Scholar
  14. Chib S, Greenberg E (1998) Analysis of multivariate probit models. Biometrika 85: 347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Complainville C, Martins JO (1994) NOX/SOX emissions and carbon abatement, OECD Working paper, No. 151. ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. 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: 1253–1260Google Scholar
  17. Dowlatabadi H, Morgan MG (1993) A model framework for integrated studies of the climate problem. Energy Policy 21: 209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Euskobarometro (2008) Estudio periódico de la opinión pública vasca. http://www.ehu.es/cpvweb/euskobarometro. Accessed on 01.10.2008
  19. EUSTAT (2008) Basque Institute of Statistics. Available at. http://www.eustat.es. Accessed on 01.10.2008
  20. Freeman MA III (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. 2. Reources for the Future, Washington, p 491Google Scholar
  21. Fundación BBVA (2008) Percepciones y actitudes de los españoles hacia el calentamiento global. Available at. http://www.fbbva.es. Accessed on 01.10.2008
  22. Greene WH (2007) LIMDEP version 9.0 user’s manual. Econometric Software, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation information with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66: 332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heintz RJ, Tol RSJ (1996) Secondary Benets of climate control policies: implications for the global environmental facility; CSERGE working paper GEC 96–17. University of East Anglia, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  25. Hidano N, Kato T (2007) Economic evaluation of anti-global warming policies: determining variability of WTP valuesGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoehn JP, Loomis JB (1993) Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. J Environ Econ Manag 25: 56–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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: 2372–2381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. INE (2008) Spanish National Statistics Institute. http://www.ine.es. Accessed on 01.10.2008
  29. IPCC: (2001) Climate change 2001. Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. IPCC: (2007) Climate change 2007. Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. 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: 161–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Layton DF, Brown G (2000) Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82: 616–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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: 329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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: 350–366Google Scholar
  35. 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: 140–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maddison D (1995) A cost-benefit analysis of slowing climate change. Energy Policy 23: 337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Markandya A, Rübbelke DTG (2004) Ancillary benefits of climate policy. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie Stat 224: 488–503Google Scholar
  38. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. RFF Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Nomura N, Akai M (2004) Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl Energy 78: 453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. OECD: (2000) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. 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: 333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Park T, Loomis J (1996) Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses. Environ Res Econ 7: 149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Payne JW, Schkade DA, Desvousges WH, Aultman C (2000) Valuation of multiple environmental programs. J Risk Uncertain 21: 95–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pearce D (2000) Policy framework for the ancillary benefits of climate change policies. Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Washington, pp 517–560Google Scholar
  46. 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: 210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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: 255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Popp D (2001) Altruism and the demand for environmental quality. Land Econ 77(3): 339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roe B, Teisl MF, Levy A, Russell M (2001) US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 29: 917–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rübbelke DTG (2002) International climate policy to combat global warming: an analysis of the ancillary benefits of reducing carbon emissions. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  51. 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: 123–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van den Bergh JCJM (2010) Safe climate policy is affordable—12 reasons. Clim Chang 101(3–4): 339–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manag 73: 317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Witzke HP, Urfei G (2001) Willingness to pay for environmental protection in Germany: coping with the regional dimension. Reg Stud 35(3): 207–214Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesQueen’s University Belfast—UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health (NI), Gibson Institute for Land, Food and the EnvironmentBelfastUK
  2. 2.Department of Applied Economics III (Econometrics and Statistics)University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)BilbaoSpain
  3. 3.BC3. Basque Centre for Climate ChangeBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations