Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion fo...

Electronic data

View graph of relations

A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice

Research output: Working paper

Published

Standard

A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice. / Kaivanto, Kim Kaleva; Zhang, Peng.

Economics : Lancaster University, Department of Economics, 2016. (Economics working paper series).

Research output: Working paper

Harvard

Kaivanto, KK & Zhang, P 2016 'A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice' Economics working paper series, Lancaster University, Department of Economics, Economics.

APA

Kaivanto, K. K., & Zhang, P. (2016). A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice. (Economics working paper series). Lancaster University, Department of Economics.

Vancouver

Kaivanto KK, Zhang P. A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice. Economics: Lancaster University, Department of Economics. 2016 May. (Economics working paper series).

Author

Kaivanto, Kim Kaleva ; Zhang, Peng. / A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice. Economics : Lancaster University, Department of Economics, 2016. (Economics working paper series).

Bibtex

@techreport{8c63420d5bf64a0a8f86928d79cc5748,
title = "A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice",
abstract = "Air transport Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions estimates differ greatly, depending on the calculation method employed. Among the IPCC, ICAO, DEFRA, and BrighterPlanet calculation methods, the largest estimate may be up to 4.5 times larger than the smallest. Such heterogeneity – and ambiguity over the true estimate – confuses the consumer, undermining the credibility of emissions estimates in general. Consequently, GHG emissions estimates do not currently appear on the front page of flight search-engine results. Even where there are differences between alternative flights{\textquoteright} emissions, this information is unavailable to consumers at the point of choice. When external considerations rule out alternative travel-modes, the relative ranking of flight options{\textquoteright} GHG emissions is sufficient to inform consumers{\textquoteright} decision making. Whereas widespread agreement on a gold standard remains elusive, the present study shows that the principal GHG emissions calculation methods produce consistent rankings within specific route-structure classes.Hence, for many consumers, the question of which calculation method to employ is largely irrelevant. But unless GHG emissions information is displayed at the point of decision, it cannot enter into consumers{\textquoteright} decision making. A credible and ambiguity-free alternative would thus be to display GHG ranking information on the front page of flight search-engine results.",
keywords = "greenhouse gas emissions, carbon footprint computation, scheduled passenger air transport, informed choice, decision making, behavior, policy",
author = "Kaivanto, {Kim Kaleva} and Peng Zhang",
year = "2016",
month = may,
language = "English",
series = "Economics working paper series",
publisher = "Lancaster University, Department of Economics",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Lancaster University, Department of Economics",

}

RIS

TY - UNPB

T1 - A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice

AU - Kaivanto, Kim Kaleva

AU - Zhang, Peng

PY - 2016/5

Y1 - 2016/5

N2 - Air transport Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions estimates differ greatly, depending on the calculation method employed. Among the IPCC, ICAO, DEFRA, and BrighterPlanet calculation methods, the largest estimate may be up to 4.5 times larger than the smallest. Such heterogeneity – and ambiguity over the true estimate – confuses the consumer, undermining the credibility of emissions estimates in general. Consequently, GHG emissions estimates do not currently appear on the front page of flight search-engine results. Even where there are differences between alternative flights’ emissions, this information is unavailable to consumers at the point of choice. When external considerations rule out alternative travel-modes, the relative ranking of flight options’ GHG emissions is sufficient to inform consumers’ decision making. Whereas widespread agreement on a gold standard remains elusive, the present study shows that the principal GHG emissions calculation methods produce consistent rankings within specific route-structure classes.Hence, for many consumers, the question of which calculation method to employ is largely irrelevant. But unless GHG emissions information is displayed at the point of decision, it cannot enter into consumers’ decision making. A credible and ambiguity-free alternative would thus be to display GHG ranking information on the front page of flight search-engine results.

AB - Air transport Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions estimates differ greatly, depending on the calculation method employed. Among the IPCC, ICAO, DEFRA, and BrighterPlanet calculation methods, the largest estimate may be up to 4.5 times larger than the smallest. Such heterogeneity – and ambiguity over the true estimate – confuses the consumer, undermining the credibility of emissions estimates in general. Consequently, GHG emissions estimates do not currently appear on the front page of flight search-engine results. Even where there are differences between alternative flights’ emissions, this information is unavailable to consumers at the point of choice. When external considerations rule out alternative travel-modes, the relative ranking of flight options’ GHG emissions is sufficient to inform consumers’ decision making. Whereas widespread agreement on a gold standard remains elusive, the present study shows that the principal GHG emissions calculation methods produce consistent rankings within specific route-structure classes.Hence, for many consumers, the question of which calculation method to employ is largely irrelevant. But unless GHG emissions information is displayed at the point of decision, it cannot enter into consumers’ decision making. A credible and ambiguity-free alternative would thus be to display GHG ranking information on the front page of flight search-engine results.

KW - greenhouse gas emissions

KW - carbon footprint computation

KW - scheduled passenger air transport

KW - informed choice

KW - decision making

KW - behavior

KW - policy

M3 - Working paper

T3 - Economics working paper series

BT - A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice

PB - Lancaster University, Department of Economics

CY - Economics

ER -