Article Sidebar

Download
Statistic
Read Counter : 23

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines student groups based on carbon tax awareness, climate change beliefs, trust in government, and perceived government funding, and compares their willingness to pay (WTP) for carbon taxes.
Method: K-means clustering identified three groups, while one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tested differences in WTP.
Results: The Trust-Oriented group showed higher WTP than Institutional Skeptics, despite generally low carbon tax awareness.
Novelty: These findings highlight the relevance of institutional trust in student acceptance of carbon taxes.
Contribution: Universities can use these insights to strengthen carbon tax education in accounting and interdisciplinary curricula, while policymakers should improve public communication and revenue transparency.








Abstrak: Kesediaan Mahasiswa Membayar Pajak Karbon: Analisis Klaster











Tujuan: penelitian ini mengkaji kelompok mahasiswa berdasarkan kesadaran pajak karbon, keyakinan terhadap perubahan iklim, kepercayaan terhadap pemerintah, dan persepsi terhadap pendanaan pemerintah, serta membandingkan kesediaan mereka untuk membayar (WTP) pajak karbon.
Metode: K-means clustering digunakan untuk mengidentifikasi tiga kelompok mahasiswa, sedangkan one-way ANOVA dan uji Tukey’s HSD digunakan untuk menguji perbedaan WTP antarkelompok.
Hasil: temuan ini menunjukkan pentingnya kepercayaan terhadap pemerintah dalam penerimaan mahasiswa terhadap kebijakan pajak karbon.
Kebaruan: persepsi institusional memiliki peran yang berbeda dalam penerimaan pajak karbon pada setiap kelompok mahasiswa.
Kontribusi: perguruan tinggi dapat memperkuat pendidikan pajak karbon dalam kurikulum akuntansi dan mata kuliah lintas disiplin. Pemerintah perlu meningkatkan komunikasi publik dan transparansi dalam pengelolaan penerimaan pajak.





Keywords

Carbon Tax Willingness to Pay Perceived Government Funding Carbon Tax Awareness Climate Change Belief Trust in Government

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Yenni Mangoting, Dr. Elisa, Denita Damara, Dr. Sany

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Yenni Mangoting, Universitas Kristen Petra, Indonesia


Department of Accounting, Universitas Kristen Petra
Indonesia

Elisa Tjondro, Universitas Kristen Petra, Indonesia

Department Accounting, School of Business and Management, Petra Christian University

Denita Damara, Universitas Kristen Petra, Indonesia

Department Accounting, School of Business and Management, Petra Christian University

Sany, Universitas Kristen Petra, Indonesia

Department Accounting, School of Business and Management, Petra Christian University

References

  1. E. M. Ebaidalla, “Impact of indirect taxes on CO2 emissions in the presence of institutional quality: evidence from a global panel data analysis,” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 729–750, May 2024, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-08-2023-0290.
  2. M. Burchard-Dziubińska, “Controversy over the ‘polluter pays’ principle in implementing climate policy: Poland and other countries comparison,” Economics and Environment, vol. 95, no. 4, p. 1357, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.34659/eis.2025.95.4.1357.
  3. A. Ghazouani, W. Xia, M. Ben Jebli, and U. Shahzad, “Exploring the Role of Carbon Taxation Policies on CO2 Emissions: Contextual Evidence from Tax Implementation and Non-Implementation European Countries,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 20, p. 8680, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12208680.
  4. S. Vera and E. Sauma, “Does a carbon tax make sense in countries with still a high potential for energy efficiency? Comparison between the reducing-emissions effects of carbon tax and energy efficiency measures in the Chilean case,” Energy, vol. 88, pp. 478–488, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.067.
  5. A. Sharif, S. Afshan, and M. A. Qureshi, “Acceptance of learning management system in university students: an integrating framework of modified UTAUT2 and TTF theories,” International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 201, 2019, doi: 10.1504/IJTEL.2019.098810.
  6. M. Ziolo, I. Bak, and K. Cheba, “Environmental taxes - how public policy makers can use them in the decision-making process?,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 159, pp. 2216–2223, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.396.
  7. A. Fremstad and M. Paul, “The Impact of a Carbon Tax on Inequality,” Ecological Economics, vol. 163, pp. 88–97, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.016.
  8. Y. Gong, Y. Li, J. Liu, and Y. Sun, “Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes: A cost-efficient solution built on a pre-existing reward-based climate policy,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 352, p. 120025, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120025.
  9. P. Morone, R. Caferra, I. D’Adamo, P. M. Falcone, E. Imbert, and A. Morone, “Consumer willingness to pay for bio-based products: Do certifications matter?,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 240, p. 108248, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108248.
  10. I. D’Adamo and G. Lupi, “Sustainability and Resilience after COVID-19: A Circular Premium in the Fashion Industry,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 1861, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13041861.
  11. H. PhucDang et al., “What makes consumers willing to pay for carbon taxes–A view of terror management theory,” Sustain. Prod. Consum., vol. 28, pp. 1192–1203, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.07.033.
  12. L. Cao, A. Toyohara, Y. Li, and W. Zhou, “Willingness to pay for carbon tax in Japan,” Sustain. Prod. Consum., vol. 52, pp. 427–444, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.004.
  13. Y. Mangoting, P. Louisa, and V. A. Yonatan, “The Urgency Of Carbon Accounting Based on Willingness to Pay Carbon Tax,” Jurnal ASET (Akuntansi Riset), vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 119–134, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.17509/jaset.v15i1.52448.
  14. M. Sabrina, N. A. N. A, R. Meutia, and J. Surya, “Carbon Tax and Willingness to Pay: Evidence From High-Pollution Industries in Indonesia,” in 2026 ASU International Conference in Emerging Technologies for Sustainability and Intelligent Systems (ICETSIS), IEEE, May 2026, pp. 1040–1049. doi: 10.1109/ICETSIS68266.2026.11549104.
  15. S. N. Ingabo, C. K. Bambang, N. Phichetkunbodee, and Y.-C. Chan, “Cluster analysis of consumer characteristics influencing willingness to pay for green buildings and associated energy-efficient purchases in Taiwan,” Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering (JSTCE) - HUCE, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1–12, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.31814/stce.huce2025-19(3)-01.
  16. S. Yildirim and B. Candan, “Segmentation of Green Product Buyers Based on Their Personal Values and Consumption Values,” Environ. Values, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 641–661, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.3197/096327115X14384223590212.
  17. S. Sarti, N. Darnall, and F. Testa, “Market segmentation of consumers based on their actual sustainability and health-related purchases,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 192, pp. 270–280, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.188.
  18. P. C. Stern, “New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 407–424, Jan. 2000, doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
  19. Y. T. Negash, H. Rizaldy, and S. U. Rehman, “Gen Z’s willingness to pay for carbon offset in the fast fashion industry: regulatory focus and sustainability adapted value belief norms perspectives,” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1190–1207, May 2025, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-06-2024-0216.
  20. C. Jebarajakirthy et al., “A meta-analytic integration of the theory of planned behavior and the value-belief-norm model to predict green consumption,” Eur. J. Mark., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1141–1174, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1108/EJM-06-2021-0436.
  21. L. Sandved-Smith, C. Hesp, J. Mattout, K. Friston, A. Lutz, and M. J. D. Ramstead, “Towards a computational phenomenology of mental action: modelling meta-awareness and attentional control with deep parametric active inference,” Neurosci. Conscious., vol. 2021, no. 1, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1093/nc/niab018.
  22. B. A. Arnout, “Climate values as predictor of climate change perception in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1044697.
  23. L. F. Beiser‐Mcgrath and M. R. Busemeyer, “Carbon inequality and support for carbon taxation,” Eur. J. Polit. Res., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1286–1307, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12647.
  24. Jr. Joseph F. Hair, William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed. Annabel Ainscow, 2019.
  25. S. Sarti, N. Darnall, and F. Testa, “Market segmentation of consumers based on their actual sustainability and health-related purchases,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 192, pp. 270–280, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.188.
  26. J. W. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd ed. SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd., 2009.
  27. A. Cascavilla, “Does climate change concern alter individual tax preferences? Evidence from an Italian survey,” Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 1601–1617, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1108/JES-11-2022-0594.
  28. M. Fairbrother, “Trust and Public Support for Environmental Protection in Diverse National Contexts,” Sociol. Sci., vol. 3, pp. 359–382, 2016, doi: 10.15195/v3.a17.
  29. M. Hammerle, R. Best, and P. Crosby, “Public acceptance of carbon taxes in Australia,” Energy Econ., vol. 101, p. 105420, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105420.
  30. J. Ewald, T. Sterner, and E. Sterner, “Understanding the resistance to carbon taxes: Drivers and barriers among the general public and fuel-tax protesters,” Resour. Energy Econ., vol. 70, p. 101331, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2022.101331.
  31. M. Povitkina, S. Carlsson Jagers, S. Matti, and J. Martinsson, “Why are carbon taxes unfair? Disentangling public perceptions of fairness,” Global Environmental Change, vol. 70, p. 102356, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102356.
  32. S. C. Jagers and H. Hammar, “Environmental taxation for good and for bad: the efficiency and legitimacy of Sweden’s carbon tax,” Env. Polit., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 218–237, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1080/09644010802682601.
  33. I. Muhammad, S. Abdul Hamid, N. N. Mohd Hasnu, M. Adha, and M. Mohd Hanefah, “Public Acceptance of Carbon Tax Implementation: A Nationwide
  34. Empirical Study in Malaysia,” Jurnal Pengurusan, vol. 69, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.17576/pengurusan-2023-69-06.
  35. I. Ajzen, “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 50, pp. 179–211, 1991.
  36. T. FAWCETT and Y. PARAG, “An introduction to personal carbon trading,” Climate Policy, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 329–338, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.3763/cpol.2010.0649.
  37. M. Wu, “Framework Design and Mechanism Evaluation of Personal Carbon Emissions Trading,” 2022, pp.944–950. doi: 10.2991/978-94-6463-036-7_139.
  38. B. Liu et al., “Optimizing a link-based travel incentive scheme integrating personal carbon trading for low-carbon commuting,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 374, p. 124032, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124032.
  39. Z. Wadud and P. K. Chintakayala, “Personal Carbon Trading: Trade-off and Complementarity Between In-home and Transport Related Emissions Reduction,” Ecological Economics, vol. 156, pp. 397–408, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.016.