IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i7p9608-9627d52748.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Influencing Compensation Demanded for Environmental Impacts Generated by Different Economic Activities

Author

Listed:
  • Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez

    (Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago 7820436, Chile
    Industrial Engineering School, Universidad Diego Portales, Vergara 432, Santiago 8370190, Chile)

  • Luis Abdón Cifuentes

    (Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago 7820436, Chile
    National Research Center for Integrated Natural Disaster Management, CONICYT/FONDAP/15110017, Santiago 7820436, Chile)

  • Nicolás C. Bronfman

    (Engineering Sciences Department, Universidad Andres Bello, Av. República 252, Santiago 8370134, Chile
    National Research Center for Integrated Natural Disaster Management, CONICYT/FONDAP/15110017, Santiago 7820436, Chile)

Abstract

This work advances the understanding of compensation demanded for environmental impacts on atmosphere, lakes and rivers, soil, and ocean generated by mining, urban, fishing and agriculture activities. Our aims are to determine whether compensation demanded depends on the standard variables used in the field of risk perception (as perceived risk, public acceptability and trust in regulating authorities), and to explore whether these relationships depend on the environment affected and on the economic activity generating the impacts. General Linear Models were used to analyze survey responses from 427 citizens of Santiago, Chile. Results showed that compensation demanded depends on perceived risk, acceptability, and on the economic activity, but not on the environment affected. Acceptability depends on trust in authorities, on perceived risk and on the economic activity. Perceived risk depends on trust, the economic activity and the environment affected. Overall, environmental impacts from the mining industry are perceived as riskier, less acceptable, and have a higher compensation demanded than those generated by the other sectors. These results suggest that to achieve sustainable development, regulations should consider not only environmental impacts but also the economic activity originating them.

Suggested Citation

  • Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Nicolás C. Bronfman, 2015. "Factors Influencing Compensation Demanded for Environmental Impacts Generated by Different Economic Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-20, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:7:p:9608-9627:d:52748
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/7/9608/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/7/9608/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Mansfield & George L. Van Houtven & Joel Huber, 2002. "Compensating for Public Harms: Why Public Goods Are Preferred to Money," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 368-389.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez & Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez & Luis Abdón Cifuentes, 2008. "Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 755-773, September.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    5. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 643-648, December.
    6. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    8. Mattias J. Viklund, 2003. "Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross‐National Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 727-738, August.
    9. Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, 1997. "The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-Out," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 746-755, September.
    10. Cornes,Richard & Sandler,Todd, 1996. "The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521477185.
    11. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher & Timothy C. Earle, 2005. "Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 145-156, March.
    12. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    13. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
    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. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Sandra Cortés & Soledad Burgos & Héctor Adaros & Boris Lucero & Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá, 2021. "Environmental Health Risk Perception: Adaptation of a Population-Based Questionnaire from Latin America," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.

    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. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    3. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    5. Yi Ge & Guangfei Yang & Xiaotao Wang & Wen Dou & Xueer Lu & Jie Mao, 2021. "Understanding risk perception from floods: a case study from China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(3), pages 3119-3140, February.
    6. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    7. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    8. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    9. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    10. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    11. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    12. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    14. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    15. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    16. Olsen, Robert A., 2008. "Trust as risk and the foundation of investment value," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2189-2200, December.
    17. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    18. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2013. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 333-347, February.
    19. Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Xiao Wang & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong & Qiudi Wu, 2021. "Examining the Role of Trust in Regulators in Food Safety Risk Assessment: A Cross-regional Analysis of Three Chinese Societies Using an Integrative Framework," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    20. Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Hobman, Elizabeth V., 2015. "Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1385-1394.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:7:p:9608-9627:d:52748. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.