IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection

  • Halkos, George E.
  • Jones, Nikoleta

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of social factors (expressed as social and institutional trust social norms, and social networks) on the decision of individuals to pay for improvement of environmental protection of biodiversity. For this purpose an empirical study was carried out in two National Parks of Northern Greece. Three scenarios were proposed differing in the management options (regulatory, market-based and community-based scenarios) and the payment mechanism. Our empirical results show that social capital variables, especially social norms and social trust, have a strong influence both on the decision of individuals to pay and the specific amount stated. Specifically, we find that social norms have a positive influence for the willingness to pay (WTP) of individuals of a state-tax and an entrance fee (regulatory and market-based scenario respectively). Furthermore, social trust has a positive impact for the WTP through an entrance fee and a community tax (market-based and community-based scenario respectively). We also find a higher WTP of individuals towards the market based scenario where participation of citizens is higher compared to the current management status. Concerning the impact of demographic factors, we find that income does not influence the specific amount stated by individuals.

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:
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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 78 (2012)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 90-99

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:78:y:2012:i:c:p:90-99
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.003
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
  2. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
  3. Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 577-601, March.
  4. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205, 10.
  5. Thur, Steven M., 2010. "User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National Marine Park," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-69, January.
  6. Bogaert, Dirk & Cliquet, An & Maes, Frank, 2009. "Designation of marine protected areas in Belgium: A legal and ecological success?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 878-886, November.
  7. David Oglethorpe & Despina Miliadou, 2000. "Economic Valuation of the Non-use Attributes of a Wetland: A Case-study for Lake Kerkini," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 755-767.
  8. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
  9. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-33, March.
  10. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Seung-Jun Kwak & Tai-Yoo Kim, 2001. "Modelling willingness to pay responses from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys with zero observations," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 523-529.
  11. Polyzou, E. & Jones, N. & Evangelinos, K.I. & Halvadakis, C.P., 2011. "Willingness to pay for drinking water quality improvement and the influence of social capital," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 74-80, February.
  12. Nikoleta Jones, 2010. "Investigating the influence of social costs and benefits of environmental policies through social capital theory," Policy Sciences, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 229-244, September.
  13. Areti Kontogianni & Ian Langford & Andreas Papandreou & Mihalis Skourtos, 2003. "Social Preferences for Improving Water Quality: An Economic Analysis of Benefits from Wastewater Treatment," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 17(5), pages 317-336, October.
  14. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
  15. Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Ton Van Schaik, 2005. "Differences in social capital between 54 Western European regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(8), pages 1053-1064.
  16. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-44, September.
  17. del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez, Rocío & Maldonado, Jorge Higinio, 2010. "Evaluating the role of co-management in improving governance of marine protected areas: An experimental approach in the Colombian Caribbean," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2557-2567, October.
  18. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
  19. Angulo-Valdés, Jorge A. & Hatcher, Bruce G., 2010. "A new typology of benefits derived from marine protected areas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 635-644, May.
  20. Adams, Cristina & Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramón Arigoni & Reid, John & Ebersbach Aznar, Cristina & de Almeida Sinisgalli, Paulo Antonio, 2008. "The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 359-370, June.
  21. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
  22. Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
  23. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2008. "Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 433-446, April.
  24. Meyerhoff, Jurgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2006. "Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 583-594, June.
  25. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.
  26. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
  27. Menegaki, Angeliki N. & Hanley, Nick & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2007. "The social acceptability and valuation of recycled water in Crete: A study of consumers' and farmers' attitudes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 7-18, April.
  28. M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
  29. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
  30. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.
  31. Bernard, Florence & de Groot, Rudolf S. & Campos, José Joaquín, 2009. "Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to finance their conservation and sustainable use: A case study of Tapantí National Park, Costa Rica," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 174-183, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:78:y:2012:i:c:p:90-99. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.