Is the Value of Environmental Goods Sensitive to the Source of Public Funding? Evidence from a Marine Restoration Programme in the Black Sea
In this paper we employ a choice experiment (conducted in Ukraine and Turkey) 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. One proposes the financing of the marine restoration programme by reducing public expenditure for investments in renewable energy, and the second by reducing public expenditure for civil servantsÃƒÂ¢Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½ training. The results reveal that the marginal value of public money depends on the funding source. In the civil servantsÃƒÂ¢Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½ budget reallocation survey, the reallocation coefficient is positive, implying that ceteris paribus directing public resources away from this source is utility-enhancing. Furthermore, the valuation of the attributes of the marine restoration programme is sensitive to the trade-off implied by the funding scheme. The magnitude of the results differs in the two considered countries, mirroring their heterogeneity in political and cultural dimensions.
|Date of creation:|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (+301) 8214021
Fax: (301) 8214021
Web page: http://deos.aueb.gr/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
- 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.
- Ramon Lopez & Gregmar Galinato & Asif Islam, 2009. "Fiscal Spending and the Environment: Theory and Empirics," Working Papers 2009-22, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
- John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
- Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
- Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
- 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, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 503-517, August.
- World Bank, 2010. "World Development Indicators 2010," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 4373.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 715-19, November.
- 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, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
- 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.
- Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
- Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 491-510, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:1321. 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: (Ekaterini Glynou)
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.