IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ksa/szemle/1804.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gazdag szegények. Időráfordítási hajlandóság a környezeti javak értékelésében
[The wealthy poor - "willingness to spend time" in evaluating environmental benefits]

Author

Listed:
  • Kocsis, Tamás
  • Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna

Abstract

Világszerte egyre gyakrabban kutatják a környezeti javakban bekövetkező változások pénzbeli értékét. Leginkább azt vizsgálják, mekkora áldozatot hajlandók az emberek hozni annak érdekében, hogy egy kedvező környezeti változás bekövetkezzen, vagy egy hátrányos változást el lehessen kerülni. A pénzbeli felajánlásnak azonban sok esetben gátat szab az, ha a megkérdezetteknek nincs nélkülözhető jövedelmük, amelyet erre a célra - akár csak elméletben is - befizethetnének, miközben magát a kedvező változást (vagy a kedvezőtlen elmaradását) ők is értékelik. Ilyen esetekre a szakirodalom azt javasolja, hogy a pénzbeli hozzájárulást idő vagy munka felajánlásával helyettesítsük, ily módon jutva a pénzbeli értékelés egy alternatívájához, amely azonban változatlanul piaci alapú és kvantitatív jellegű. A hagyományos piac "egy dollár-egy szavazat" logikája ily módon demokratikusabb irányt vehet, hiszen a naptári nap mindenki számára huszonnégy órából áll. A tanulmány ennek jegyében foglalja össze a témában született nemzetközi szakirodalmat.* Journal of Economic Literature (JEL ) kód: H23, H41, I31, Q51.

Suggested Citation

  • Kocsis, Tamás & Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna, 2018. "Gazdag szegények. Időráfordítási hajlandóság a környezeti javak értékelésében [The wealthy poor - "willingness to spend time" in evaluating environmental benefits]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1154-1171.
    • Handle: RePEc:ksa:szemle:1804
    DOI: 10.18414/KSZ.2018.11.1154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kszemle.hu/tartalom/letoltes.php?id=1804
    Download Restriction: Registration and subscription. 3-month embargo period to non-subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18414/KSZ.2018.11.1154?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. Lankia, Tuija & Neuvonen, Marjo & Pouta, Eija & Sievänen, Tuija, 2014. "Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 141-160.
    2. Olivier Beaumais & Dominique Prunetti, 2016. "“Time for Waste, Waste of Time? Assessing Heterogeneous Values of Time Spent Recycling Using a Latent-Class Rank-Ordered Logit Approach”," Post-Print hal-01468601, HAL.
    3. Le Trong Hung & John B. Loomis & Vu Tien Thinh, 2007. "Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 173-185.
    4. Lankia, Tuija & Neuvonen, Marjo & Pouta, Eija & Sievänen, Tuija, 2014. "Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182651, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Echessah, Protase N. & Swallow, Brent M. & Kamara, Damaris W. & Curry, John J., 1997. "Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: Application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 239-253, February.
    6. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    7. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Nguyen Minh Duc & Rehl, Antonia & Siepmann, Ute & Pham Van Dinh, 2017. "Labour as a utility measure reconsidered," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 03-2017, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    8. O'Garra, Tanya & Mourato, Susana & Pearson, Peter, 2008. "Investigating attitudes to hydrogen refuelling facilities and the social cost to local residents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2074-2085, June.
    9. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    10. Swallow, B. M. & Woudyalew, M., 1994. "Evaluating willingness to contribute to a local public good: Application of contingent valuation to tsetse control in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 153-161, November.
    11. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    12. Young-Sook Eom & Douglas Larson, 2006. "Valuing housework time from willingness to spend time and money for environmental quality improvements," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 205-227, September.
    13. Kocsis, Tamás, 2002. "Állam vagy piac a környezetvédelemben?. A környezetszennyezés-szabályozási mátrix [State or market in environmental protection?. The environmental pollution-regulating matrix]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(10), pages 889-892.
    14. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    15. Mesfin Tilahun & Regina Birner & John Ilukor, 2017. "Household-level preferences for mitigation of invasion in the Afar region of Ethiopia: a contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(2), pages 282-308, February.
    16. Frank J. Cesario, 1976. "Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(1), pages 32-41.
    17. Shyamsundar, Priya & Kramer, Randall A., 1996. "Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-144, September.
    18. Diafas, Iason & Barkmann, Jan & Mburu, John, 2017. "Measurement of Bequest Value Using a Non-monetary Payment in a Choice Experiment—The Case of Improving Forest Ecosystem Services for the Benefit of Local Communities in Rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 157-165.
    19. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    20. Rajesh K. Rai & Helen Scarborough, 2015. "Nonmarket valuation in developing countries: incorporating labour contributions in environmental benefits estimates," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(4), pages 479-498, October.
    21. Keller, Tamás, 2010. "Az önbizalom kereseti hatása [The earnings-related effect of self-confidence]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 241-260.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vondolia, Godwin K. & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Are non-monetary payment modes more uncertain for stated preference elicitation in developing countries?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 73-87.
    2. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    3. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Nicholson, Charles F., 2020. "Revisiting money and labor for valuing environmental goods and services in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    4. Hagedoorn, Liselotte C. & Koetse, Mark J. & van Beukering, Pieter J.H. & Brander, Luke M., 2021. "Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time contributions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    5. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Nguyen Minh Duc & Rehl, Antonia & Siepmann, Ute & Pham Van Dinh, 2017. "Labour as a utility measure reconsidered," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 03-2017, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    6. Diafas, Iason & Barkmann, Jan & Mburu, John, 2017. "Measurement of Bequest Value Using a Non-monetary Payment in a Choice Experiment—The Case of Improving Forest Ecosystem Services for the Benefit of Local Communities in Rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 157-165.
    7. Diriba Abdeta, 2022. "Households' willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ethiopia: A review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(11), pages 437-451.
    8. Andreas Pondorfer & Katrin Rehdanz, 2018. "Eliciting Preferences for Public Goods in Nonmonetized Communities: Accounting for Preference Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-86.
    9. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    10. Joseph Arbiol & Maridel Borja & Mitsuyasu Yabe & Hisako Nomura & Nina Gloriani & Shin-ichi Yoshida, 2013. "Valuing Human Leptospirosis Prevention Using the Opportunity Cost of Labor," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    11. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    12. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    13. Heru Susilo & Yoshifumi Takahashi & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2017. "The Opportunity Cost of Labor for Valuing Mangrove Restoration in Mahakam Delta, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, November.
    14. Tilahun, Mesfin & Vranken, Liesbet & Muys, Bart & Deckers, Jozef A. & Gebregziabher, Kidanemariam & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Bauer, Hans & Mathijs, Erik, 2012. "Rural Households’ Demand for Frankincense Forest Conservation in Tigray: A Continent Valuation Analysis," Working Papers 146520, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    15. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Shyamsundar, Priya & Nepal, Mani & Bhatta, Laxmi Dutt, 2015. "Differences in demand for watershed services: Understanding preferences through a choice experiment in the Koshi Basin of Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 274-283.
    16. Li, Liqing & Long, Dede, 2022. "Household Preference for Impure Public Goods - an Application of Community Gardens," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322142, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Xin Nie & Qian Chen & Ting Xiao & Han Wang, 2019. "Willingness to pay for ecological function regions protection based on a choice experiment method: a case study of the Shiwandashan nature reserve," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 813-829, March.
    18. Meginnis, Keila & Hanley, Nick & Mujumbusi, Lazaaro & Lamberton, Poppy H.L., 2020. "Non-monetary numeraires: Varying the payment vehicle in a choice experiment for health interventions in Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. de Rezende, Carlos Eduardo & Kahn, James R. & Passareli, Layra & Vásquez, William F., 2015. "An economic valuation of mangrove restoration in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 296-302.
    20. A. K. M. Abdullah Al-Amin & Khorshed Alam & Uttam Babu Shrestha & Masudul Haque Prodhan & Mostafa A. R. Hossain & Nahid Sattar & M. J. Hossain & Tahmina Akhter, 2021. "Ecosystems, livelihood assets and willingness to pay for wetland conservation in Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(12), pages 17503-17534, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:ksa:szemle:1804. 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: Odon Sok (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.kszemle.hu .

    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.