Natural Hazards

, Volume 95, Issue 1–2, pp 419–435 | Cite as

How to involve individuals in personal carbon trading? A game model taking into account the heterogeneous emotions of government and individuals

  • Daoyan Guo
  • Hong ChenEmail author
  • Ruyin LongEmail author
Original Paper


The implementation of personal carbon trading (PCT) scheme is urgently required in the context of low-carbon development. It is a key issue and a difficult problem for government to design the pattern of involving individuals into PCT scheme. Based on the rank-dependent expected utility theory, game model and numerical simulation were employed to analyse the influences of the heterogeneous emotions of government and individuals on their equilibrium strategies about the pattern of implementing PCT scheme. The findings show that the emotions of government and individuals cannot influence the equilibrium of pure strategies, but do affect the equilibrium of the mixed strategy. Further analysis shows that the strategy of government can be influenced by individuals’ emotions, and government will move towards the “mandatory pattern” strategy when individuals are optimistic and towards the “voluntary pattern” strategy when individuals are pessimistic. Additionally, the strategy of individuals can be affected by government’s emotions, and individuals will move towards “rejection” strategy when government is optimistic and towards the “participation” strategy when government is pessimistic. Therefore, the most expected emotional state for government is to remain pessimistic and to keep individuals optimistic. This study demonstrated the effects of the heterogeneous emotions of government and individuals on the equilibrium strategies about the pattern of implementing PCT scheme, provided policy suggestions for the pattern of implementing PCT scheme, and contributed to the successful implementation of future PCT scheme as well as the achievement of global carbon emissions targets.


Personal carbon trading Mandatory pattern Voluntary pattern Rank-dependent expected utility Game model 



This study was financially supported by the Think Tank of Green Safety Management and Policy Science (2018 “Double First-Class” Initiative Project for Cultural Evolution and Creation of CUMT 2018WHCC03), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71473248, 71673271, 71473247, and 71273258), the Major Project of the National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 16ZDA056), 333 Project of Training High-level Talents of Jiangsu Province (2016), the Program of Innovation Team Supported by China University of Mining and Technology (No. 2015ZY003), Jiangsu Philosophy and Social Sciences Excellent Innovation Cultivation Team (No. 2017ZSTD031), and the “13th Five Year” Brand Discipline Construction Funding Project of China University of Mining and Technology (2017).


  1. Bristow AL, Wardman M, Zanni AM et al (2010) Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax. Ecol Econ 69(9):1824–1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Casimir S (2018) Heatwaves, hurricanes, floods: 2017 costliest year ever for extreme weather and climate events, says UN. United Nations News. Accessed 16 July 2018
  3. Cason TN (2003) Buyer liability and voluntary inspections in international greenhouse gas emissions trading: a laboratory study. Environ Resour Econ 25(1):101–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diecidue E, Wakker PP (2001) On the intuition of rank-dependent utility. J Risk Uncertain 23(3):281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME (2005) Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J Pers Soc Psychol 88(5):736–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eyre N (2010) Policing carbon: design and enforcement options for personal carbon trading. Clim Policy 10(4):432–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fawcett T, Parag Y (2010) An introduction to personal carbon trading. Clim Policy 10(4):329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guo DY, Chen H, Long RY (2018a) The allocation strategy of government for initial carbon allowance in downstream carbon trading market: an evolutionarily game between government and households. China Popul Resour Environ 28(4):43–54Google Scholar
  9. Guo DY, Chen H, Long RY, Ni YZ (2018b) An integrated measurement of household carbon emissions from a trading-oriented perspective: a case study of urban families in Xuzhou, China. J Clean Prod 188:613–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guzman LI, Clapp A (2016) Applying personal carbon trading: a proposed ‘Carbon, Health and Savings System’ for British Columbia, Canada. Clim Policy 17(5):616–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hou F, Ma J, Shabbir M et al (2014) The social acceptability of personal carbon trading in China. Public Policy Adm Res 4(11):39–47Google Scholar
  12. Jagers SC, Löfgren Å, Stripple J (2010) Attitudes to personal carbon allowances: political trust, fairness and ideology. Clim Policy 10(4):410–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. King A (2018) 2017: the year in extreme weather. Eco-Business. Accessed 16 July 2018
  14. Machina MJ (1987) Choice under uncertainty: problems solved and unsolved. J Econ Perspect 1(1):121–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mcnamara D, Caulfield B (2013) Examining the impact of carbon price changes under a personalised carbon trading scheme for transport. Transp Policy 30(30):238–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Papathanasopoulou E (2010) Household consumption, associated fossil fuel demand and carbon dioxide emissions: the case of Greece between 1990 and 2006. Energy Policy 38(8):4152–4162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parag Y, Capstick S, Poortinga W (2011) Policy attribute framing: a comparison between three policy instruments for personal emissions reduction. J Policy Anal Manag 30(4):889–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J Econ Behav Organ 3(4):323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sanderson I (2002) Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Adm 80(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Steg L (2008) Promoting household energy conservation. Energy Policy 36(12):4449–4453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tian X, Chang M, Lin C, Tanikawa H (2014) China’s carbon footprint: a regional perspective on the effect of transitions in consumption and production patterns. Appl Energy 123(1):19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wadud Z, Noland RB, Graham DJ (2008) Equity analysis of personal tradable carbon permits for the road transport sector. Environ Sci Policy 11(6):533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wallace A, Irvine K, Wright A et al (2010) Public attitudes to personal carbon allowances: findings from a mixed-method study. Clim Policy 10(4):385–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang Z, Liu W, Yin J (2015) Driving forces of indirect carbon emissions from household consumption in China: an input–output decomposition analysis. Nat Hazards 75(2):257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang Y, Yang L, Han S et al (2017) Urban CO2 emissions in Xi’an and Bangalore by commuters: implications for controlling urban transportation carbon dioxide emissions in developing countries. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 22(7):993–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watts N, Amann M, Ayeb-Karlsson S et al (2018) The Lancet countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health. Lancet 391:581–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. WMO (2017) World Meteorological Organization Greenhouse Gas Bulletin - No. 13: The state of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere based on global observations through 2016. Accessed 8 May 2018
  28. Xie Q, Wu J, Shabbir M et al (2014) Public acceptability of personal carbon trading in China: an empirical research. J Energy Technol Policy 4(12):24–33Google Scholar
  29. Ye H, Ren Q, Hu X et al (2017) Low-carbon behavior approaches for reducing direct carbon emissions: household energy use in a coastal city. J Clean Prod 141:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Young S (2017) World Risk Report 2017: marked increase in extreme weather events, but people more prepared. The Watchers. Accessed 16 July 2018
  31. Zhang X, Wang Y (2017) How to reduce household carbon emissions: a review of experience and policy design considerations. Energy Policy 102:116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang C, Wang Q, Shi D et al (2016) Scenario-based potential effects of carbon trading in China: an integrated approach. Appl Energy 182:177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zheng Y, Yang Z, Jin C et al (2017) The influence of emotion on fairness-related decision making: a critical review of theories and evidence. Front Psychol 8:1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementChina University of Mining and TechnologyXuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations