The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change
Abstract
We examine the structure of preferences for mitigating impacts of global climate change that will not occur during the lifetimes of most who are alive today. Because no market data exist for such distant markets, a statedpreference approach is used. The analysis is based on the random-parameters logit model, and the results indicate substantial heterogeneity in respondent preferences, that mean willingness to pay is a significant and increasing function of the scope of the impact, and, provocatively, that respondents have the same preferences over the two very different time horizons that we consider.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda
NAIDOO, R., & ADAMOWICZ, W. L. (2005) · Environment and Development Economics · doi:10.1017/s1355770x0400186x · Cited by 129
Rashid, H., Hunt, L. M., & Haider, W. (2007) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-006-0233-7 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Layton, D. F., & Brown, G.
- Venue
- Review of Economics and Statistics
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 616-624
- ISSN
- 0034-6535 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9142
- OpenAlex
- W2133333298
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
