Willingness to Pay for Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation

Abstract

Willingness to Pay, Contingent valuation, Ancillary benefits, Climate change, Q51,

Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?

“…These figures could also emphasize the existence of co-benefits for the local population. Expecting positive co-benefits is indeed associated with higher willingness to pay for climate change mitigation (Longo et al 2012) as well as higher acceptability of carbon taxes (Baranzini and Carattini 2017). The general public should also be informed about the other effects of the tax, such as on competitiveness and the distribution of burdens.…”

Yes in my backyard : market based mechanisms for forest conservation and climate change mitigation in La Primavera, Mexico

“…This shows the effect of the geopolitical thresholds and cultural identification in local valuation (Morrison and Bennett, 2004;Brouwer et al, 2010;Johnston and Duke, 2009). These results are congruent with other valuation studies: higher carbon prices for carbon sequestration in local projects resemble the higher valuation of water quality improvements in local catchments (Morrison and Bennett, 2004;Brouwer et al, 2010) and the valuation of local health co-benefits of climate policy (Longo et al, 2012). …”

“…Other studies also report that WTP for climate change mitigation is related to environmental awareness (Adaman et al, 2011), perceived awareness and uncertainty of climate change impacts (Nomura and Akai, 2004;Akter and Bennett, 2009), payment vehicle type (Wiser, 2007), higher income and material well-being (Dietz et al, 2007;Li et al, 2009;Solomon and Johnson, 2009;Adaman et al, 2011), level of trust in the institutions implementing the activities (Adaman et al, 2011), younger age (Hersch and Viscusi 2006;Dietz et al, 2007;Li et al, 2009;Solomon and Johnson, 2009;Achtnicht, 2011;Adaman et al, 2011), gender (Viscusi and Zeckhauser, 2006;Dietz et al, 2007;Li et al, 2009;Solomon and Johnson 2009), the feeling of responsibility (Brouwer et al, 2008;, the access to other local co-benefits (Longo et al, 2012), and, as expected from economic theory, it is negatively correlated with cost (Loomis and Ekstrand, 1998;. Previous information related to carbon-offset prices and familiarity with offsetting practices are also positively related with WTP (Lu and Shon, 2012;Ziegler et al, 2012).…”

“…These cases correspond to protests (as indicated by the participants' comments), incomplete questionnaires and those who stated that the questions were confusing in one of the debriefing questions; thus these observations were not considered in the analysis, in accordance with standard methods (e.g. Scarpa et al, 2009;Diederich and Goeschl, 2011;Longo et al, 2012). Results in the MNL models show the valuation of those accepting the offsetting scheme proposed.…”

The valuation of forest carbon services by Mexican citizens: the case of Guadalajara city and La Primavera biosphere reserve

“…The most frequently cited explanatory variables of WTP in the studies reviewed by Johnson and Nemet (2010) (Wiser, 2007), higher income and material well-being (Dietz et al 2007;Li et al 2009;Solomon and Johnson 2009;Adaman et al 2011), level of trust in the institutions implementing the activities (Adaman et al 2011), younger age (Hersch and Viscusi 2006;Dietz et al 2007;Li et al 2009;Solomon and Johnson 2009;Achtmicht 2011;Adaman et al 2011), gender (Viscusi and Zeckhauser 2006;Dietz et al 2007;Li et al 2009;Solomon and Johnson 2009), the feeling of responsibility (Brouwer et al 2008;Akter et al 2009), the access to other local co-benefits (Longo et al 2012), and, as expected from economic theory, it is negatively correlated with cost (Loomis and Ekstrand 1998;Akter et al 2009). Previous information related to carbon-offset prices and familiarity with offsetting practices are also positively related with WTP (Lu and Shon, 2012;Ziegler et al 2012).…”