IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/122496.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is the Value of Environmental Goods Sensitive to the Source of Public Funding? Evidence from a Marine Restoration Programme in the Black Sea

Author

Listed:
  • Remoundou, Kyriaki
  • Adaman, Fikret
  • Koundouri, Phoebe
  • Nunes, Paulo A.L.D.

Abstract

Is the Value of Environmental Goods Sensitive to the Source of Public Funding? Evidence from a Marine Restoration Programme in the Black Sea Abstract 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 servants’ training. The results reveal that the marginal value of public money depends on the funding source. In the civil servants’ 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Remoundou, Kyriaki & Adaman, Fikret & Koundouri, Phoebe & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2013. "Is the Value of Environmental Goods Sensitive to the Source of Public Funding? Evidence from a Marine Restoration Programme in the Black Sea," MPRA Paper 122496, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:122496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/122496/1/MPRA_paper_122496.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
    3. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    9. Urvashi Narain & Shreekant Gupta & Klaas van ’t Veld, 2008. "Poverty and the Environment: Exploring the Relationship Between Household Incomes, Private Assets, and Natural Assets," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 148-167.
    10. 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, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Stavros Georgiou & Dale Whittington & David Pearce & Dominic Moran, 1997. "Economic Values and the Environment in the Developing World," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1163.
    13. 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.
    14. John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    17. 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.
    18. 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, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 503-517, August.
    19. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), 2010. "Choice Experiments in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13208.
    20. Edward B. Barbier, 2005. "Natural Resource-Based Economic Development in History," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 6(3), pages 103-152, July.
    21. Kyriaki Remoundou & Phoebe Koundouri & Areti Kontogianni & Paulo Nunes & Michalis Skourtos, 2009. "Valuation of natural marine ecosystems: an economic perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0906, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    22. 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 715-719, November.
    23. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    24. 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, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 491-510, August.
    25. World Bank, 2010. "World Development Indicators 2010," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 4373.
    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. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "The Economics of Sustainable Development," DEOS Working Papers 2005, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "From Theory to Practice. SDG Patterns Across the Globe," DEOS Working Papers 2006, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    3. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "SDGs Patterns Across the Globe: From Theory to Practice," DEOS Working Papers 2016, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    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. Kyriaki Remoundou & Fikret Adaman & Phoebe Koundouri & Paulo Nunes, 2014. "Is the value of environmental goods sensitive to the public funding scheme? Evidence from a marine restoration programme in the Black Sea," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1173-1192, December.
    2. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
    3. Kyriaki Remoundou & Fikret Adaman & Phoebe Koundouri & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, 2011. "Are Preferences for Environmental Quality Sensitive to Financial Funding Schemes? Evidence from a Marine Restoration Programme in the Black Sea," Working Papers 2011.38, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Adaman, Fikret & Koundouri, Phoebe & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2011. "Are Stated Preferences Sensitive to Funding Sources? A Tax Reallocation Scheme to Value Marine Restoration," MPRA Paper 122471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2010. "Does institutional context affect preference formation? Evidence from a stated preference valuation study," MPRA Paper 122495, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Bujosa, Angel & Torres, Cati & Riera, Antoni, 2018. "Framing Decisions in Uncertain Scenarios: An Analysis of Tourist Preferences in the Face of Global Warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 36-42.
    9. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.
    10. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    11. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Ulf Liebe & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Volkmar Hartje, 2012. "Test–Retest Reliability of Choice Experiments in Environmental Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 389-407, November.
    14. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    15. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    17. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    19. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Black Sea; marine resources; public goods; stated choice experiment; tax revenues reallocation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods

    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:pra:mprapa:122496. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.