Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Income effects and the inconvenience of private provision of public goods for bads: The case of recycling in Finland

Contents:

Author Info

  • Huhtala, Anni

Abstract

Absent or weak income effects reported in many contingent valuation studies have cast doubt on the reliability of the survey method. We find that the income effect depends on the type of public good in question: there is a negative income effect for willingness to pay for recycling, which requires time and effort for sorting, but a positive effect for the more convenient incineration. Hence, high-income (low-income) individuals may display less (more) effort on environmental behavior. This stresses the importance of comprehensive distributional analyses when assessing alternative environmental policies.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-5005Y05-1/2/a31b544099a2b884ef73e7478feb86f5
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 69 (2010)
Issue (Month): 8 (June)
Pages: 1675-1681

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:8:p:1675-1681

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Related research

Keywords: Willingness to pay Preferences Waste disposal;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Lorenzo Cappellari & Paolo Ghinetti & Gilberto Turati, 2007. "On Time and Money Donations," CESifo Working Paper Series 2140, CESifo Group Munich.
  2. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Moore, Michael R., 2007. "Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.
  3. Wayne B. Gray & Ronald J. Shadbegian, 2002. "Optimal Pollution Abatement - Whose Benefits Matter, and How Much?," NBER Working Papers 9125, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1981. "Qualitative Response Models: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 1483-1536, December.
  5. Ornetzeder, Michael & Hertwich, Edgar G. & Hubacek, Klaus & Korytarova, Katarina & Haas, Willi, 2008. "The environmental effect of car-free housing: A case in Vienna," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 516-530, April.
  6. James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001. "Which Is The Fair Sex? Gender Differences In Altruism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312, February.
  7. Parry, Ian W. H., 2004. "Are emissions permits regressive?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 364-387, March.
  8. Matthew J. Kotchen, 2009. "Voluntary Provision of Public Goods for Bads: A Theory of Environmental Offsets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 883-899, 04.
  9. Flores, Nicholas E. & Carson, Richard T., 1995. "The Relationship Between the Income Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 148795, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  10. Vicary, Simon, 2000. "Donations to a public good in a large economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 609-618, March.
  11. Huhtala, Anni & Pouta, Eija, 2008. "User fees, equity and the benefits of public outdoor recreation services," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 117-132, April.
  12. Bengt Kristrom & Pere Riera, 1996. "Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 45-55, January.
  13. West, Sarah E., 2004. "Distributional effects of alternative vehicle pollution control policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 735-757, March.
  14. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
  15. Berglund, Christer, 2006. "The assessment of households' recycling costs: The role of personal motives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 560-569, April.
  16. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
  17. Heleen Bartelings & Thomas Sterner, 1999. "Household Waste Management in a Swedish Municipality: Determinants of Waste Disposal, Recycling and Composting," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(4), pages 473-491, June.
  18. Sarah E. West & Roberton C. Williams III, 2002. "Estimates from a Consumer Demand System: Implications for the Incidence of Environmental Taxes," NBER Working Papers 9152, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Goodman, Robert P, 1973. "Private Demands for Public Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 280-96, June.
  20. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & Kadziela, Tadeusz, 2012. "We want to sort! - assessing households' preferences for sorting waste," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2012-01, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:8:p:1675-1681. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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