Have a personal or library account? Click to login

CO2 as Resource. Society’s Willingness to Pay Analysis

Environmental and Climate Technologies
Volume 26 (2022): Issue 1 (January 2022)
By:
Open Access
|Sep 2022

References

  1. [1] IPCC. IPCC Press Release. Geneva: IPCC, 2022.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. [2] Pei Q., et al. Climate change, state capacity and nomad–agriculturalist conflicts in Chinese history. Quaternary International 2019:508:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.10.022
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. [3] World Meteorological Organization. Proceedings of the World Climate Conference. Geneva: WMO, 1979.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. [4] Ritchie H., Roser M. CO2 emissions, 2020. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions (accessed Apr. 11, 2022).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. [5] Statista. CO2: total emissions by EU country 2019, 2020 Online]. [Accessed 12.04.2022]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/789024/emissions-co2-dioxide-of-carbon-by-country-eu/
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. [6] World Meteorological Organization. WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2019. Geneva: WMO, 2020.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. [7] Global CCS Institute. Global Status of CCS 2020. Melbourne: Global CCS Institute, 2021.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. [8] IEA. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage - Fuels & Technologies [Online]. [Accessed 11.04.2022]. Available: https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. [9] Xu M., et al. Assessment of potential, cost, and environmental benefits of CCS-EWR technology for coal-fired power plants in Yellow River Basin of China. Journal of Environmental Management 2021:292:112717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.11271734015611
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. [10] Stokke R., et al. The role of green public procurement in enabling low-carbon cement with CCS: An innovation ecosystem perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022:363:132451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132451
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. [11] Rodin V., et al. Assessing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Potentials in Europe for Valorisation. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2020:41:101219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2020.101219
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. [12] IOGP. The potential for CCS and CCU in Europe Report To The Thirty Second Meeting Of The European Gas Regulatory Forum 5-6 June 2019 Coordinated By IOGP. Madrid: IOGP, 2019.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. [13] Coll C., et al. Carbon Capture, Use And Storage (CCUS). New York, 2021.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. [14] Allen M., et al. Summary for Policymakers. Geneva, 2018.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. [15] European Union. Standard Eurobarometer 91. Europeans’ views on the priorities of the European Union. European Union, 2019.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. [16] Thomas M., et al. Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition. Energy Policy 2022:162:112777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112777
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. [17] Bejiere G., et al. Samaziniet klimata izmaiņas: lietojiet koksni! (Reduce climate change: Use wood!). Cei-Bois, 2006.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. [18] Galiegue S., Laude A. Combining Geothermal Energy and CCS: From the Transformation to the Reconfiguration of a Socio-Technical Regime? Energy Procedia 2017:114:7528–7539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1904
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. [19] Von Rothkirch J., Ejderyan O. Anticipating the social fit of CCS projects by looking at place factors. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2021:110:103399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103399
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. [20] Hardisty P. E., Sivapalan M., Brooks P. The Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Carbon Capture and Storage. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011:8(5):1460. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH8051460310812021655130
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. [21] Bäckstrand K., Meadowcroft J., Oppenheimer M. The politics and policy of carbon capture and storage: Framing an emergent technology. Global Environmental Change 2011:21(2):275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2011.03.008
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. [22] Pubule J., et al. Analysis of the environmental impact assessment of power energy projects in Latvia. Management of Environmental Quality 2012:23(2):190–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777831211204930.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. [23] Seo S. N. The Theory of Public Goods and Their Efficient Provisions. The Behavioral Economics of Climate Change. Academic Press, 2017:33–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811874-0.00002-7
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. [24] Haloks G., et al. Determinants of willingness to pay for urban parks: An empirical analysis in Greece. Land Use Policy 2022:119:106186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106186
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. [25] Hofstetter R., et al. A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2021:38(1):70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJRESMAR.2020.04.006
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. [26] Xiong K., Kong F. The Analysis of Farmers’ Willingness to Accept and Its Influencing Factors for Ecological Compensation of Poyang Lake Wetland. Procedia Engineering 2017:174:835–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENG.2017.01.230
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. [27] O’Mahony T. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the environment: The time horizon is of the essence. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2021:89:106587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106587
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. [28] Suzuki K., et al. An international comparative study on driving attitudes and behaviors based on questionnaire surveys. IATSS Research 2022:46(1):26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2021.10.002
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. [29] Balagué C., de Valck K. Using Blogs to Solicit Consumer Feedback: The Role of Directive Questioning Versus No Questioning. J. Interact. Mark. 2013:27(1):62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INTMAR.2012.06.002
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. [30] Jones T. L., Baxter M., Khanduja V. A quick guide to survey research. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2013:95(1):5–7. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588413X13511609956372396463923317709
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. [31] Zhang Y., et al. Exploring cooling pattern of low-income households in urban China based on a large-scale questionnaire survey: A case study in Beijing. Energy in Buildings 2021:236:110783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110783
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2022-0061 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8837 | Journal ISSN: 1691-5208
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 806 - 821
Published on: Sep 25, 2022
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
Carbon dioxide emissions,
CCS,
CO2,
Latvia,
willingness to pay
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2022 Viktorija Terjanika, Liana Vetrinska, Jelena Pubule, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 26 (2022): Issue 1 (January 2022)Next article