Transport and low-carbon fuel: A study of public preferences in Spain

Energy Economics

Volumn 40, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Loureiro, Maria L ^a   Labandeira, Xavier ^b,c   Hanemann, Michael ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIGO   (Spain)

^c Economics for Energy   (Spain)

^d ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biofuels; Contingent valuation; WTP

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; POLICY INSTRUMENTS; POLICY INTERVENTION; PUBLIC PREFERENCES; SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; WTP;

BIOFUELS; ECONOMICS;

GREENHOUSE GASES;

BIOFUEL; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GREENHOUSE GAS; LITERATURE REVIEW; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SPAIN;

EID: 84888340564     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anderson S., Stradling S. Attitudes to Car Use and Modal Shift in Scotland 2004, Scottish Executive Social Research Findings, Edinburgh.
2. Brownstone D., Bunch D., Train K. Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transp. Res. B 2000, 34:315-338.
3. Cansino J.M., Pablo-Romero M., Román R., Yñiguez R. Promotion of biofuel consumption in the transport sector: an EU-27 perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16:6013-6021.
4. Carriquiry M., Du X., Timilsina G. Second generation biofuels: economics and policies. Energy Policy 2011, 39:4222-4234.
5. CORES Boletín Estadístico de Hidrocarburos 2010. Corporación de Reservas Estratégicas de Productos 2010, Petrolíferos, Madrid.
6. Delshad A., Raymond L., Sawicki V., Wegener D. Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels. Energy Policy 2010, 38:3414-3425.
7. Dietz T., Dan A., Shwom R. Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural. Sociol. 2007, 72:185-214.
8. EEA Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe. Tracking Progress Towards Kyoto and 2020 Targets 2012, European Environment Agency, Copenhaguen.
9. EPA A comprehensive analysis of biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions. Technical report 2002, U.S. Environment Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
10. European Commission EU Transport in Figures 2011, Office for Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
11. Giraldo L., Gracia A., Do Amaral E. Willingness to pay for biodiesel in Spain: a pilot study for diesel consumers. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 18:887-894.
12. Hanemann M., Labandeira X., Loureiro M. Public preferences for climate change policies: evidence for Spain. Working Paper 2011-06, FEDEA 2011.
13. Harman H.H. Modern Factor Analysis 1976, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
14. Hersch J., Viscusi W. The generational divide in support for environmental policies: European evidence. Clim. Chang. 2006, 77:121-136.
15. Hsu S.L., Walters J., Purgas A. Pollution tax heuristics: an empirical study of willingness to pay higher gasoline taxes. Energy Policy 2008, 36:3612-3619.
16. IDAE Informe Anual de Indicadores Energéticos 2010, Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de Energía, Madrid.
17. IEA Key World Energy Statistics 2012, International Energy Agency, Paris.
18. Jeanty P., Haab T., Hitzhusen F. Willingness to pay for biodiesel in diesel engines: a stochastic double bounded contingent valuation survey. Paper Presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon 2007.
19. Johnson E., Nemet G. Willingness to pay for climate policy: a review of estimates. La Follete Sch. WP 2010, 2010-011.
20. Kaiser H.F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20:141-151.
21. Knittel C.R. Automobiles on steroids: product attribute trade-offs and technological progress in the automobile sector. Am. Econ. Rev. 2012, 101:3368-3399.
22. Krzyzanowski M., Kuna-Dibbert B., Schneider J. Health Effects of Transport-related Air Pollution 2005, World Health Organization, Copenhaguen.
23. Labandeira X. Nuevos entornos para la fiscalidad energética. Información Comercial Española. Rev. Econ. 2011, 862:57-80.
24. Labandeira X., Labeaga J.M., Rodríguez M. An energy demand system for Spain. Energy J. 2006, 27:87-112.
25. Li X., Clark C., Jensen K., Yen S., English B. Consumer purchase intentions for flexible-fuel and hybrid-electric vehicles. Transp. Res. D 2013, 18:9-15.
26. Monzón A., Guerrero M.J. Valuation of social and health effects of transport-related air pollution in Madrid (Spain). Sci. Total. Environ. 2004, 334-335:427-434.
27. Nunes P.A. Using factor analysis to identify consumer preferences for the protection of a natural area in Portugal. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 140:499-516.
28. Petrolia D.R., Bhattacharjee S., Hudson D., Herndon C.W. Do Americans want ethanol? A comparative contingent-valuation study of willingness to pay for E-10 and E-85. Energy Econ. 2010, 32:121-128.
29. Proost S., Van Dender K. Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector. Econ.Transp. 2012, 1:77-87.
30. Sandmo A. The scale and scope of environmental taxation. DP 18 2009, Department of Economics, NHH.
31. Savvanidou E., Zervas E., Tsagarakis K.P. Public acceptance of biofuels. Energy Policy 2010, 38:3482-3488.
32. Solomon B.D., Johnson N.H. Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:2137-2144.
33. Thorpe N., Hills P., Jaensirisak S. Public attitudes to TDM measures: a comparative study. Transp. Policy 2000, 7:243-257.
34. Zhang Y., Yu Y., Li T., Zou B. Analyzing Chinese consumers' perception for biofuels implementation: the private vehicles owner's investigation in Nanjing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15:2299-2309.