Personal Carbon Trading: Trade-off and Complementarity Between In-home and Transport Related Emissions Reduction
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
PCT requires understanding complex policy instruments, thereby imposing higher cognitive demands than conventional green behaviors.
“Second, it requires understanding complex policy instruments, thereby imposing higher cognitive demands than conventional green behaviors [10, 11].”
From The power of loss: message framing, climate anxiety, and engagement in personal carbon trading (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
The Review of literature (p. 3) explains how households receive and trade carbon permits, and Methods §3.1 describes how the survey presented the scheme to respondents. Neither passage says PCT requires greater cognitive effort than conventional green behaviors. A search for understanding, complexity, and cognitive demands found no passage addressing that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Dietz T, Kalof L and Stern PC 2002. Gender, values and environmentalism, Social Science Quarterly,
- Fan J, Wang S, Wu Y, Li J and Zhao D 2015b. Energy use choices and allowance trading under the personal carbon trading scheme, Natural Resource Modeling, 28(1), 1-17
- Li Y, he H, Fan J, Shi X and Zhao D 2017. Can personal gasoline permit trading be effective? An investigation into permit demand, Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 98-108
- Pizer WA 1999. The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty, Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 255-287.
- Stavins R 1998. What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 69-88.
- Tietenberg T 2006. Emissions Trading Principles and Practice, Resources for the Future, 2nd edition,
- Wadud Z, Graham DJ and Noland RB 2010. Gasoline demand with heterogeneity in household responses, The Energy Journal, 31 (1), 47-73
- Weitzman M 1974. Prices vs. quantities, Review of Economic Studies, 41, 477-491
- Yang D and Timmermans H 2017. Households transport-home energy conservation strategies in response to energy price policies; A stated adaptation experiment based on portfolio choices and cross effects designs, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11:2, 133-147
- Zanni AM, Bristow AL and Wardman M 2013. The potential behavioural effect of personal carbon trading: results from an experimental survey, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2),
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The power of loss: message framing, climate anxiety, and engagement in personal carbon trading
Li, T., Yang, Y., Liu, X., & Zeng, S. (2025) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-025-03713-w · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wadud, Z., & Chintakayala, P. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Leeds (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wadud, Zia
- Venue
- Ecological Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 156
- Pages
- 397-408
- ISSN
- 0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2899215347
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 4.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ecological Economics (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Union 7th Framework Programme
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
- Keywords
- personal carbon trading, emissions trading, household energy consumption, transport emissions, complementarity, carbon permits
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
