炭素クレジットの配分構造とインセンティブメカニズム：体系的レビュー
Allocation structures and incentive mechanisms of carbon credit: a systematic review (原題)
H Lee, Sangpil Ko, Jun Lee, Jeong Whon Yu
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本レビューは、炭素クレジットの配分ルールとインセンティブ設計が、ステークホルダーの参加・調整・行動にどう影響するかを、特に運輸セクターへの適用に注目して体系的に検討した。構造・モデル・インセンティブ・排出範囲の4次元で近年文献を分析し、ゲーム理論や最適化モデルが多用される一方、ユーザー受容や行動応答を扱う調査研究が乏しいことを示す。また排出認識は直接排出が主流で、ライフサイクル排出の考慮が不足している。制度ルール・事業者意思決定・ユーザー行動・認識される排出削減を統合したクレジット設計の必要性を提唱する。
English
This systematic review examines how carbon-credit allocation rules and incentive designs shape stakeholder participation, coordination, and behaviour, with a focus on transport decarbonisation. Analysing recent literature across structure, model, incentive, and emission-scope dimensions, it finds heavy reliance on game-theoretic and optimisation models but limited attention to user acceptance and behavioural responses. Emission recognition remains dominated by direct emissions, with life-cycle emissions under-addressed. The authors call for integrated carbon-credit mechanisms linking allocation rules, incentive design, operator and user responses, and credible emission recognition.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではGXリーグやカーボンクレジット市場（JCM含む）の設計が進む中、運輸部門の脱炭素とクレジット制度の接続は政策課題。本レビューは、事業者と利用者の行動を統合したインセンティブ設計の必要性を示し、国内制度設計や企業のクレジット活用戦略に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As carbon markets mature under Article 6, CORSIA, and voluntary standards, this review highlights a gap in linking allocation rules to real behavioural responses—critical for transport, a hard-to-abate sector. It contributes to global disclosure and transition-finance scholarship by stressing credible emission recognition (including life-cycle) and multi-actor governance, relevant to ISSB/CSRD-aligned carbon accounting.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:炭素クレジット設計と行動経済学・ゲーム理論を接合する研究ギャップを明確化する。
🏢実務担当者:運輸・物流企業がクレジット制度を活用する際、配分ルールとインセンティブ設計の留意点を提供する。
🏛政策担当者:運輸脱炭素に向けたクレジット制度設計で、事業者・利用者双方の行動を組み込む必要性を示す。
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study examines how carbon-credit-related allocation and incentive mechanisms are designed to influence stakeholder participation, coordination, and behavioural responses, with particular attention to their applicability in the transport sector. Despite the importance of transport decarbonisation, integrating carbon-credit mechanisms with operator decisions and user behaviour remains challenging. This review systematically examines recent literature using four analytical dimensions: structure type, model type, incentive type, and emission scope, to identify how allocation rules, incentive structures, actor responses, and emission recognition are addressed in existing studies. The reviewed literature frequently examines multi-actor governance arrangements alongside single-actor designs, including public–private coordination and mechanisms combining market-based instruments with financial support. Game-theoretic and optimisation models are frequently employed, whereas survey-based approaches examining user acceptance and behavioural responses receive comparatively limited attention. Furthermore, direct emissions remain the predominant basis for emission recognition, with less emphasis on life-cycle emissions. These findings indicate that existing studies often simplify the relationships between institutional rules, operator decisions, user behaviour, and recognised emission reductions. This limitation is particularly relevant to transport, where policy outcomes depend on both the feasibility of low-carbon service provision and users' willingness to adopt available alternatives. Overall, this review highlights the need for integrated carbon-credit mechanisms that connect allocation rules, incentive design, operator and user responses, and credible emission recognition to support sustainable transport decarbonisation.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2026.2743964first seen 2026-10-09 04:48:16
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。