Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution

被引:41
作者
Komarek, Timothy M. [1 ]
Lupi, Frank [1 ,2 ]
Kaplowitz, Michael D. [3 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Dept Agr Food & Resource Econ, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[2] Michigan State Univ, Dept Fisheries & Wildlife, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[3] Michigan State Univ, Dept Community Agr Recreat & Resource Studies, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
关键词
Climate change policy; Fuel portfolio; Stated preferences; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; CLIMATE-CHANGE; GREEN-ELECTRICITY; RENEWABLE ENERGY; ECONOMIC-IMPACT; PUBLIC-GOODS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; PREFERENCES;
D O I
10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.054
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Many governments, firms, institutions and individuals have become increasingly cognizant of their impact on the environment, most notably with respect to global climate change. Coupled with the possibility of future regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, firms and institutions have begun to critically evaluate their own carbon footprint. This paper examines the preferences of stakeholders within a large academic institution for attributes of alternative greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies. The attributes considered by constituents include: the fuel portfolio mix, effort for conserving energy use, carbon emissions reduction, timeframe for emissions reduction to be achieved and cost. We use a choice experiment technique that enables the examination of greenhouse gas reduction program attribute preferences across three constituent groups. The results show that each of the constituent groups have a positive WTP for carbon emissions reductions and prefer investments in reductions in the shorter- rather than longer-term. The results also suggest differences between the constituent groups in their WTP for types of fuels in the fuel portfolio. Finally, we use the results to examine the welfare implications of different combinations of the policy attributes that coincide with alternative GHG program strategies. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:5105 / 5115
页数:11
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain [J].
Alvarez-Farizo, B ;
Hanley, N .
ENERGY POLICY, 2002, 30 (02) :107-116
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2001, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data
[3]   Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy [J].
Arentze, T ;
Borgers, A ;
Timmermans, H ;
DelMistro, R .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART E-LOGISTICS AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW, 2003, 39 (03) :229-244
[4]   Research Synthesis [J].
Baker, Reg ;
Blumberg, Stephen J. ;
Brick, J. Michael ;
Couper, Mick P. ;
Courtright, Melanie ;
Dennis, J. Michael ;
Dillman, Don ;
Frankel, Martin R. ;
Garland, Philip ;
Groves, Robert M. ;
Kennedy, Courtney ;
Krosnick, Jon ;
Lavrakas, Paul J. ;
Lee, Sunghee ;
Link, Michael ;
Piekarski, Linda ;
Rao, Kumar ;
Thomas, Randall K. ;
Zahs, Dan .
PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, 2010, 74 (04) :711-781
[5]   DOES THE NUMBER OF CHOICE SETS MATTER? RESULTS FROM A WEB SURVEY APPLYING A DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT [J].
Bech, Mickael ;
Kjaer, Trine ;
Lauridsen, Jorgen .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2011, 20 (03) :273-286
[6]   Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments [J].
Bergmann, A ;
Hanley, M ;
Wright, R .
ENERGY POLICY, 2006, 34 (09) :1004-1014
[7]   Retailing public goods: The economics of corporate social responsibility [J].
Besley, Timothy ;
Ghatak, Maitreesh .
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 2007, 91 (09) :1645-1663
[8]  
Bollino CA, 2009, ENERG J, V30, P81
[9]  
Boomer L., 2008, COMMUNICATION 1211
[10]   Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? [J].
Borchers, Allison M. ;
Duke, Joshua M. ;
Parsons, George R. .
ENERGY POLICY, 2007, 35 (06) :3327-3334