Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Willingness to Pay for Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres RU, Walter J (1991) The greenhouse effect: damages, costs and abatement. Environ Resour Econ 1: 237–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2006) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 34(9): 1004–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk R, Fovell R (1999) Public perceptions of climate change: a ‘willingness to pay’ assessment. Clim Chang 41: 413–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomquist GC, Whitehead JC (1998) Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 20: 179–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chib S, Greenberg E (1998) Analysis of multivariate probit models. Biometrika 85: 347–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowlatabadi H, Morgan MG (1993) A model framework for integrated studies of the climate problem. Energy Policy 21: 209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation information with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66: 332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC: (2007) Climate change 2007. Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton DF, Brown G (2000) Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82: 616–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddison D (1995) A cost-benefit analysis of slowing climate change. Energy Policy 23: 337–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markandya A, Rübbelke DTG (2004) Ancillary benefits of climate policy. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie Stat 224: 488–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. RFF Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomura N, Akai M (2004) Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl Energy 78: 453–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD: (2000) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park T, Loomis J (1996) Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses. Environ Res Econ 7: 149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne JW, Schkade DA, Desvousges WH, Aultman C (2000) Valuation of multiple environmental programs. J Risk Uncertain 21: 95–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popp D (2001) Altruism and the demand for environmental quality. Land Econ 77(3): 339–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe B, Teisl MF, Levy A, Russell M (2001) US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 29: 917–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bergh JCJM (2010) Safe climate policy is affordable—12 reasons. Clim Chang 101(3–4): 339–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manag 73: 317–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witzke HP, Urfei G (2001) Willingness to pay for environmental protection in Germany: coping with the regional dimension. Reg Stud 35(3): 207–214

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Longo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9491-9

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

Navigation