Public perceptions of global warming

In this paper, we examine the way public opinion responds to the prospect of global warming. In particular, we focus on the public's “willingness to pay” in order to prevent various hypothetical climate scenarios from transpiring. To this end, fractional factorial survey methods are employed with a sample of over 600 residents of Southern California. By and large, the public is able to understand and evaluate rather complicated hypothetical climate scenarios, but the public appreciates some features of climate far better than others. In this context, the contingent valuation estimates we provide, while promising, are clearly not ready of consideration by policy makers.

[1]  K. Arrow,et al.  Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility , 1974 .

[2]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .

[3]  Robert H. Nelson,et al.  Why existence value should not be used in cost‐benefit analysis , 1992 .

[4]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Generalized additive models for medical research , 1986, Statistical methods in medical research.

[5]  W. Baumol,et al.  The theory of environmental policy: On the theory of externalities , 1988 .

[6]  M. Cropper,et al.  Environmental Economics: A Survey , 1992 .

[7]  Raymond J. Kopp,et al.  Why Existence Value should be used in Cost‐Benefit Analysis , 1992 .

[8]  P. Stern,et al.  Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern , 1993 .

[9]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .

[10]  R. Layard,et al.  Cost-benefit analysis; second edition , 1994 .

[11]  J. Hoehn,et al.  Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs , 1993 .

[12]  Gregory K. Leonard,et al.  Chapter II – Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence , 1993 .

[13]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[14]  E. Quah,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis , 1972 .

[15]  R. Berk,et al.  Varieties of Normative Consensus , 1985 .

[16]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection , 1993 .

[17]  Ita G. G. Kreft,et al.  The Analysis of Factorial Surveys , 1991 .

[18]  John W. Payne,et al.  Where Do the Numbers Come From? How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions , 1993 .

[19]  William J. Baumol,et al.  The theory of environmental policy: Preface to the second edition , 1988 .

[20]  William J. Baumol,et al.  The theory of environmental policy: Contents , 1988 .

[21]  J. Payne,et al.  How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation , 1994 .

[22]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Is Sympathy an Economic Value? Philosophy, Economics, and the Contingent Valuation Method , 1993 .

[23]  Y. Izráel',et al.  Prospects for future climate , 1990 .

[24]  A. Ehrenberg,et al.  Predictability and prediction , 1993 .

[25]  R. Robert Russell,et al.  Microeconomics: A Synthesis of Modern and Neoclassical Theory , 1979 .

[26]  Jon M. Conrad,et al.  Natural Resource Economics , 2020 .

[27]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[28]  D. Pearce,et al.  Economic Values and the Natural World , 1995 .

[29]  Wallace E. Oates,et al.  The theory of environmental policy , 1976 .

[30]  R. Groves,et al.  Survey Errors and Survey Costs. , 1991 .

[31]  John F. Daum.  Some Legal and Regulatory Aspects of Contingent Valuation , 1993 .