Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/empeco/v47y2014i4p1173-1192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the value of environmental goods sensitive to the public funding scheme? Evidence from a marine restoration programme in the Black Sea

Author

Listed:
  • Kyriaki Remoundou
  • Fikret Adaman
  • Phoebe Koundouri
  • Paulo Nunes
Abstract
In this paper, we conduct choice experiments in Turkey and Ukraine on the valuation of a marine restoration programme in the Black Sea, to examine whether the value of environmental goods is sensitive to the source of public financing. We contribute to the debate on the optimal composition of public expenditure, an issue that can be controversial in times of financial crises. We discriminate between two funding regimes through the reallocation of public spending. The first proposes financing the marine restoration programme by reducing public expenditure for investments in renewable energy, and the second by reducing public expenditure for civil servants’ training. The results reveal that the marginal value of public money depends on the funding source. Furthermore, attribute values are sensitive to the trade-off implied by the funding scheme. The magnitude of the results differs in the two countries considered, because of their heterogeneity in political and cultural dimensions. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Kyriaki Remoundou & Fikret Adaman & Phoebe Koundouri & Paulo Nunes, 2014. "Is the value of environmental goods sensitive to the public funding scheme? Evidence from a marine restoration programme in the Black Sea," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1173-1192, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:empeco:v:47:y:2014:i:4:p:1173-1192
    DOI: 10.1007/s00181-014-0806-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00181-014-0806-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00181-014-0806-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    2. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    3. López, Ramón & Galinato, Gregmar I. & Islam, Asif, 2011. "Fiscal spending and the environment: Theory and empirics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 180-198, September.
    4. Stephen K. Swallow & Michael P. McGonagle, 2006. "Public Funding of Environmental Amenities: Contingent Choices Using New Taxes or Existing Revenues for Coastal Land Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 56-67.
    5. Urvashi Narain & Shreekant Gupta & Klaas van ’t Veld, 2008. "Poverty and the Environment: Exploring the Relationship Between Household Incomes, Private Assets, and Natural Assets," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 148-167.
    6. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    7. Ertör-Akyazı, Pınar & Adaman, Fikret & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2012. "Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 309-320.
    8. Stavros Georgiou & Dale Whittington & David Pearce & Dominic Moran, 1997. "Economic Values and the Environment in the Developing World," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1163.
    9. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    10. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    12. John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
    13. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
    14. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    15. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    16. Adaman, Fikret & KaralI, Nihan & Kumbaroglu, Gürkan & Or, Ilhan & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2011. "What determines urban households' willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 689-698, February.
    17. Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald, 2011. "A comparison of compensating surplus and budget reallocation with opportunity costs specified," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(30), pages 4677-4688.
    18. Tiziana Luisetti & Ian J. Bateman & R. Kerry Turner, 2011. "Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 284-296.
    19. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    20. Bond, Craig A. & Cullen, Kelly Giraud & Larson, Douglas M., 2009. "Joint estimation of discount rates and willingness to pay for public goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2751-2759, September.
    21. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    22. Yuksel, Ibrahim, 2013. "Renewable energy status of electricity generation and future prospect hydropower in Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1037-1043.
    23. Paulo Nunes & Chiara Travisi, 2009. "Comparing Tax and Tax Reallocation Payments in Financing Rail Noise Abatement Programmes: Results from a Stated Choice Valuation Study in Italy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 503-517, August.
    24. Edward B. Barbier, 2005. "Natural Resource-Based Economic Development in History," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 6(3), pages 103-152, July.
    25. Kontoleon, Andreas & Yabe, Mitsuyasu & Darby, Laura, 2005. "Alternative Payment Vehicles in Contingent Valuation: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods," MPRA Paper 1827, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    26. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    27. Pinar Ertor Akyazi & Fikret Adaman & Begum Ozkaynak & Unal Zenginobuz, 2012. "Citizens’ Preferences over Nuclear and Renewable Energy Sources: Evidence from Turkey," Working Papers 2012/01, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    28. Søren Olsen & Thomas Lundhede & Jette Jacobsen & Bo Thorsen, 2011. "Tough and Easy Choices: Testing the Influence of Utility Difference on Stated Certainty-in-Choice in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 491-510, August.
    29. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    30. World Bank, 2010. "World Development Indicators 2010," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 4373.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "The Economics of Sustainable Development," DEOS Working Papers 2005, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "From Theory to Practice. SDG Patterns Across the Globe," DEOS Working Papers 2006, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    4. Halkos, George & Zisiadou, Argyro & Aslanidis, Panagiotis-Stavros & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2024. "Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Services in the Black Sea," MPRA Paper 121733, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Mary Lynch & Llinos Haf Spencer & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2020. "A Systematic Review Exploring the Economic Valuation of Accessing and Using Green and Blue Spaces to Improve Public Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "SDGs Patterns Across the Globe: From Theory to Practice," DEOS Working Papers 2016, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kyriaki Remoundou & Fikret Adaman & Phoebe Koundouri & Paulo Nunes, 2013. "Is the Value of Environmental Goods Sensitive to the Source of Public Funding? Evidence from a Marine Restoration Programme in the Black Sea," DEOS Working Papers 1321, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
    3. Kyriaki Remoundou & Fikret Adaman & Phoebe Koundouri & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, 2011. "Are Preferences for Environmental Quality Sensitive to Financial Funding Schemes? Evidence from a Marine Restoration Programme in the Black Sea," Working Papers 2011.38, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    5. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija & Zawadzki, Wojciech & Tienhaara, Annika, 2023. "Cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments with positive status quo cost," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    7. Bujosa, Angel & Torres, Cati & Riera, Antoni, 2018. "Framing Decisions in Uncertain Scenarios: An Analysis of Tourist Preferences in the Face of Global Warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 36-42.
    8. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    9. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    10. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    11. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2017. "Expert judgements and public values: preference heterogeneity for protecting ecology in the Swan River, Western Australia," Working Papers 254025, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    12. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    14. Ozdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Whittington, Dale, 2016. "Ideology, public goods and welfare valuation: An experiment on allocating government budgets," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 61-72.
    15. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    16. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    17. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John C. & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2020. "Expert judgements and community values: preference heterogeneity for protecting river ecology in Western Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(2), April.
    18. Ulf Liebe & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Volkmar Hartje, 2012. "Test–Retest Reliability of Choice Experiments in Environmental Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 389-407, November.
    19. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    20. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Black Sea; Marine resources; Public goods; Stated choice experiment; Tax revenues reallocation; H41; H50; Q51; Q57;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • H50 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - General
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:empeco:v:47:y:2014:i:4:p:1173-1192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.