Advertisement

Pricing Innovation in Climate Change Adaptation (CCA): Hedonic Valuation of R&D That Can Favor CCA

  • Johann JacobEmail author
  • Jessica Bouchard
  • Moktar Lamari
  • Éva Anstett
Reference work entry

Abstract

Ever since climate change became a collective concern, governments have diversified incentives encouraging firms to mitigate climate change by investing in new technology development. However, many decision makers still question their value and wonder what determines climate change adaptation (CCA) at the firm level. This chapter deals with two questions: What makes some firms more committed to CCA than others? To what extent do R&D-active firms invest in new technologies required by CCA? Data were gathered using a 2012–2013 online survey conducted among 255 R&D-active firms in Canada (Quebec). Our dependent variable measures firm investment in technology acquisition, and independent variables are related to firms’ CCA effort and to their context. Our results suggest that CCA-active firms are (i) highly innovative, (ii) intensive in R&D, (iii) investors in physical capital, and (iv) open to external knowledge. The model developed suggests that firms invest, on average, $5,358 a year to acquire new technologies related to climate change adaptation for each level of impact on CCA (10 levels used in our research). Our results are groundbreaking in terms of pricing the specific R&D impacts on CCA at the firm level. They indicate that the activities of research centers like technology transfer organizations make a difference in terms of CCA, especially to enable actions in the private sector. Our findings also help the public sector to improve its actions targeting CCA (e.g., tax credit or grants for firms acting in CCA).

Keywords

Climate change adaptation Public-private R&D collaborations Technology transfer organizations Cost-benefit analysis 

References

  1. Baum SD (2009) Description, prescription and the choice of discount rates. Ecol Econ 69(1):197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braüninger M, Butzengeiger-Geyer S, Dlugolecki A et al (2011) Application of economic instruments for adaptation to climate change. Report to the European Commission, Directorate General CLIMA, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks N, Adger NW, Kelly MP (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob Environ Chang 15(2):151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burch S, Schroeder H, Rayner S et al (2013) Novel multisector networks and entrepreneurship: the role of small businesses in the multilevel governance of climate change. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 31:822–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clar C, Prutsch A, Steurer R (2013) Barriers and guidelines for public policies on climate change adaptation: a missed opportunity of scientific knowledge-brokerage. Nat Res Forum 37:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craft J, Howlett M, Crawford M et al (2013) Assessing policy capacity for climate change adaptation: governance arrangements, resource deployments, and analytical skills in Canadian infrastructures policy making. Rev Policy Res 30(1):44–65Google Scholar
  7. De Coninck H, Fischer C, Newell RG et al (2008) International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change. Energy Policy 36:335–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dietz S, Hope C, Patmore N (2007) Some economics of dangerous climate change: reflections on the stern review. Global Environ Change 17:311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenack K (2013) The inefficiency of private adaptation to pollution in the presence of endogenous market structure. Environ Res Econom. doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9667-6Google Scholar
  10. Goulden M, Conway D, Persechino A (2009) Adaptation to climate change in international river basins in Africa: a review. Hydrol Sci J 54(5):805–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grosse R (1996) International technology transfer in services. J Int Business Stud 27:780–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gupta V (2005) Climate change and domestic mitigation efforts. Econ Pol Wkly 40(10):981–987Google Scholar
  13. Gupta S, Tirpak D, Burger N et al (2007) Policies, instruments and co-operative arrangements. In: Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P et al (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Hallegate S, Lecocq F, De Perthuis C (2011) Designing climate change adaptation policies: an economic framework. Policy research working paper, 5568. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamit-Haggar M (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: a panel cointegration analysis from Canadian industrial sector perspective. Energy Econom 34:358–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heal G (2009) Climate economics: a meta-review and some suggestions for future research. Rev Environ Econom Policy 3(1):4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hof AF, Van Vuuren DP, Den Elzen MGJ (2010) A qualitative minimax regret approach to climate change: does discounting still matter? Ecol Econ 70:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howarth RB (2003) Discounting and uncertainty in climate change policy analysis. Land Econ 79(3):369–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes L, Chaudhry N (2011) The challenge of meeting Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. Energy Policy 39:1352–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Working group I report: climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Retrieved from www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
  21. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014a) Working group II report: chapter 17. Economics of adaptation. Retrieved from www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
  22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014b) Working group III report: chapter 3 and 13. Economics of adaptation. Retrieved from www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
  23. Laffont JJ (1995) Regulation, moral hazard and insurance of environmental risks. J Public Econom 58(3):319–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lancaster K.J (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy 74(2): 132–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maddison D (1995) A cost-benefit analysis of slowing climate change. Energy Policy 23(4):337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maybee BM, Packey DJ, Ripple RD (2012) Climate change policy: the effect of real options valuation on the optimal mitigation-adaptation balance. Econom Papers 31(3):216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Osberghaus D, Dannenberg A, Mennel T et al (2010) The role of the government in adaptation to climate change. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 28(5):834–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paehlke R (2014) Climate change: mitigation, adaptation, and development. Environ Polit 23(1):179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pielke R Jr (2007) Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern review report on the Economics of Climate Change. Glob Environ Chang 17:302–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH et al (1990) Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Q 1:107–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change: the stern review. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Tebaldi C, Smith R, Nychka D et al (2005) Quantifying uncertainty in projections of regional climate change: a Bayesian approach to the analysis of multi-model ensembles. J Clim 18:1524–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Townley PCG (1998) Principles of cost-benefit analysis in a canadian context. Prentice-Hall, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  34. Travers M, Nassiri A, Appéré G et al (2008) Évaluation des bénéfices environnementaux par la méthode des prix hédonistes: une application au cas du littoral. Économ Prévision 4(185):47–62Google Scholar
  35. World Bank (2010) The costs to developing countries of adapting to climate change: new methods and estimates. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Zarka YC (2010) Le monde émergent: Les nouveaux défis environnementaux. Armand Colin, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johann Jacob
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessica Bouchard
    • 1
  • Moktar Lamari
    • 1
  • Éva Anstett
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research and Expertise in Evaluation (CREXE)École nationale d’administration publique (National School of Public Administration), University of QuebecQCCanada

Personalised recommendations