Public acceptability of climate change mitigation policies: a discrete choice experiment

References

• Akter, S., & Bennett, J. (2011). Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: The case of the carbon pollution reduction scheme in Australia. Climatic Change, 109(3–4), 417–436. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0034-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akter, S., Bennett, J., & Ward, M. B. (2012). Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: Evidence from an Australian choice experiment. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 736–745. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baranzini, A., & Carattini, S. (2016). Effectiveness, earmarking and labeling: Testing the acceptability of carbon taxes with survey data. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 1–31. doi:10.1007/s10018-016-0144-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechtel, M. M., & Scheve, K. F. (2013). Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(34), 13763–13768. doi:10.1073/pnas.1306374110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., & Weimer, D. L. (2004). Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: Application to global climate change using national internet samples. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47(2), 331–363. doi:10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00094-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brannlund, R., & Persson, L. (2012). To tax, or not to tax: Preferences for climate policy attributes. Climate Policy, 12(6), 704–721. doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.675732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brick, K., & Visser, M. (2015). What is fair? An experimental guide to climate negotiations. European Economic Review, 74, 79–95. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.11.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bristow, A. L., Wardman, M., Zanni, A. M., & Chintakayala, P. K. (2010). Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax. Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1824–1837. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bukowski, M., Maśnicki, J., Śniegocki, A., & Trzeciakowski, R. (2015). Quo vadis? Prospects for the development of the coal mining sector in Poland. Warsaw: WISE Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Cai, B., Cameron, T. A., & Gerdes, G. R. (2010). Distributional preferences and the incidence of costs and benefits in climate change policy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46(4), 429–458. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-9348-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Krupnick, A., Lampi, E., Löfgren, Å., Qin, P., & Sterner, T. (2013). A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China. Resource and Energy Economics, 35(1), 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T., & Czajkowski, M. (2014). The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of choice modelling (pp. 202–235). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cazorla, M. V., & Toman, M. A. P. (2001). International equity and climate change policy. In M. A. P. Toman (Ed.), Climate change economics and policy: An RFF anthology. (pp. 235–247). Washington, DC: Resources For the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, S., & Brännlund, R. (2009). Climate policy measures: What do people prefer? Umeå University, Department of Economics. Retrieved from http://www.usbe.umu.se/digitalAssets/7/7737_ues767.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cools, M., Brijs, K., Tormans, H., Moons, E., Janssens, D., & Wets, G. (2011). The socio-cognitive links between road pricing acceptability and changes in travel-behavior. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(8), 779–788. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2011.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czajkowski, M., & Budziński, W. (2015, January). An insight into the numerical simulation bias – A comparison of efficiency and performance of different types of quasi Monte Carlo simulation methods under a wide range of experimental conditions. Paper presented at Environmental Choice Modelling Conference, Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Dietz, S., & Atkinson, G. (2010). The equity-efficiency trade-off in environmental policy: Evidence from stated preferences. Land Economics, 86(3), 423–443. doi: 10.3368/le.86.3.423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, T., Dan, A., & Shwom, R. (2007). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72(2), 185–214. doi:10.1526/003601107781170026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM(2011). Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2015a). Energy Union package: A framework strategy for a resilient energy union with a forward-looking climate change policy. COM(2015). Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2015b). Climate action progress report 2015 (report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council). Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress/docs/progress_report_2015_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2016). 2050 low-carbon economy. Retrieved August 3, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050/index_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (2014, October 23 and 24). Conclusions of European Council on 2030 climate and energy policy framework. EUCO 169/14, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Environmental Agency. (2015). Trends and projections in Europe 2015 — Tracking progress towards Europe’s climate and energy targets (No. 4/2015). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/trends-and-projections-in-europe-2015
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. (2014). Level of internet access – Households. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/information-society/data/main-tables.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrini, S., & Scarpa, R. (2007). Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(3), 342–363. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2006.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P. C., & Sarin, R. K. (1994). Fairness and social risk I: Unaggregated analyses. Management Science, 40(9), 1174–1188. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.40.9.1174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harring, N., & Jagers, S. (2013). Should We trust in values? Explaining public support for Pro-environmental taxes. Sustainability, 5(1), 210–227. doi:10.3390/su5010210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPCC (2014). Summary for policymakers. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, … J. C. Minx (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joint Statement of Ministers of the Environment of the Visegrad Group and Bulgaria and Romania (2014, September 30). Bratislava.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Schmöcker, J.-D., Fujii, S., & Noland, R. B. (2013). Attitudes towards road pricing and environmental taxation among US and UK students. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48, 50–62. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layton, D. F., & Levine, R. A. (2003). How much does the Far future matter? A hierarchical bayesian analysis of the public’s willingness to mitigate ecological impacts of climate change. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 98(463), 533–544. doi:10.1198/016214503000000341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. J., & Cameron, T. A. (2008). Popular support for climate change mitigation: Evidence from a general population mail survey. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41(2), 223–248. doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9189-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 45–72. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, H., Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., & Weimer, D. L. (2004). Would developing country commitments affect US households’ support for a modified Kyoto Protocol? Ecological Economics, 48(3), 329–343. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miketa, A., & Schrattenholzer, L. (2006). Equity implications of two burden-sharing rules for stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations. Energy Policy, 34(7), 877–891. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Connor, R. E., Bard, R. J., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461–471. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paris Agreement. (2015, December 12). Paris: United Nations Treaty Collection. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapter=27&clang=_en#EndDec
   Google Scholar
• Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Demski, C., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2012). Individual-motivational factors in the acceptability of demand-side and supply-side measures to reduce carbon emissions. Energy Policy, 48, 812–819. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rais, J. (2014, February 25). Was the support of renewables in the Czech Republic failure? Retrieved from http://4liberty.eu/was-the-support-of-renewables-in-the-czech-republic-failure/.
   Google Scholar
• Revelt, D., & Train, K. (1998). Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 647–657. doi:10.1162/003465398557735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, T. W., Bostrom, A., Read, D., & Morgan, M. G. (2010). Now what do people know about global climate change? Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(10), 1520–1538. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01448.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringius, L., Torvanger, A., & Underdal, A. (2002). Burden sharing and fairness principles in International climate policy. International Environmental Agreements, 2(1), 1–22. doi:10.1023/A:1015041613785
   Google Scholar
• Rose, A., Stevens, B., Edmonds, J., & Wise, M. (1998). International equity and differentiation in global warming policy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 12(1), 25–51. doi:10.1023/A:1008262407777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sælen, H., & Kallbekken, S. (2011). A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 2181–2190. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarpa, R., & Rose, J. M. (2008). Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: How to measure it, what to report and why*. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 52(3), 253–282. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00436.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ščasný, M., Massetti, E., Melichar, J., & Carrara, S. (2015). Quantifying the ancillary benefits of the representative concentration pathways on Air quality in Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics, 62(2), 383–415. doi:10.1007/s10640-015-9969-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (2003). Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(1), 45–61. doi:10.1016/S1369-8478(02)00046-3
   Google Scholar
• Schleich, J., Dütschke, E., Schwirplies, C., & Ziegler, A. (2016). Citizens’ perceptions of justice in international climate policy: An empirical analysis. Climate Policy, 16(1), 50–67. doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.979129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• State Energy Policy of the Czech Republic (2015). Ministry of Industry and Trade, Prague – December 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 415–425. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train, K., & Weeks, M. (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In R. Scarpa & A. Alberini (Eds.), Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (Vol. 6, pp. 1–16). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/1-4020-3684-1_1
   Google Scholar
• Wiser, R. H. (2003). Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Wiser, R. H. (2007). Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 419–432. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, H. P. (1994). Equity: In theory and practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zvěřinová, I., Ščasný, M., & Kyselá, E. (2014). What influences public acceptance of the current policies to reduce GHG emissions? (WP2 deliverable 2.5). Prague: Charles University Environment Center. Retrieved from http://cecilia2050.eu/publications/239
   Google Scholar