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

Remoundou, Kyriaki and Adaman, Fikret and Koundouri, Phoebe and 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. Published in:

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.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Black Sea, marine resources, public goods, stated choice experiment, tax revenues reallocation
• Subjects: H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H41 - Public Goods; H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H42 - Publicly Provided Private Goods

References

Acar and Dzugur 2004.

Adaman F., Karalı N., Kumbaroglu G., Or I., Özkaynak B., Zengonobuz U. (2011) What determines urban households’ willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A contingent valuation survey. Energ Policy 39:689-98.

Barbier E.B., (ed) (2005) Natural Resources and Economic Development. Cambridge University Press.

Bennett J., Birol E., (eds) (2010) Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications. Edward Elgar

Bergstrom J.C., Boyle K.L., Yabe, M. (2004) Trading taxes vs. paying taxes to value and finance public environmental goods. Environ Resour Econ 28:533–49.

Bhat 2001.

Black Sea Commission (BSC) (2009) Implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea (2002-2007). Publications of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC), 2009-1, Istanbul, Turkey, 247pp.

Bond, C.A, Giraud-Cullen, K., Larson, D.M., 2009. Joint estimation of discount rates and willingness to pay for public goods. Ecol Econ 68: 2751–2759

Carlsson F., Martinsson, P. (2003) Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ 12, 281-294.

Carlsson F, Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. (2009) Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behaviour in stated preference surveys? Environ Resour Econ 38:155–164.

Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., 2009. Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods. Environ Resour Econ 44:521-535.

Cummings R.D., Taylor L.O. (1998) Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys? Land Econ 74(2): 203-15.

DeShazo J.R., Fermo G. (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44:123-43.

Dhar R., Simpson I. (2003) The effect of forced choice on choice. J Marketing Res 40:146–60.

European Science Foundation (ESF) (2007) Impacts of Climate Change on the European Marine and Coastal Environment, Ecosystems Approach. Marine Board Position Paper 9.

Georgiou S., Whittington D., Pearce D, Moran D. (eds) (1997) Economic Values and the Environment in the Developing World. Edward Elgar Publishing, United Nations Environment Programme 1997.

Heileman S., Parr W., Volovik G. (2008) Chapter V-8 Black Sea LME in Sherman K. and Hempel G. (Eds). The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s Regional Seas. UNEP Regional Seas, Report and Studies No. 182. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya, pp 839.

Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. (2003) The Mixed Logit model: The State of Practice. Transportation 30, 133-176

International Energy Agency (2008) Available online at: http://www.iea.org/country/index.asp , last accessed on November 2011. International Commission of Independent Experts 2010.

Kataria M. (2009) Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers. Energ Econ 31:69–76.

Kontoleon A., Yabe M., Darby L. (2005) Alternative payment vehicles in contingent valuation: The case of genetically-modified foods. MPRA Paper No. 1827, University Library of Munich, Germany.

Kragt M.E. (2013) The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity. Environ Resource Econ 54:201–221.

Krinsky I., and Robb, L.A. (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Statistics 68(4):715–19.

Lew D.K., Wallmo K. (2011) External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation. Environ Resour Econ 48:1-23.

López R., Galinato G.I., Islam A. (2011) Fiscal spending and the environment: Theory and empirics. J Environ Econ Manag 62(2): 180-198.

Luisetti T., Barteman I.J.,Turner K.R (2011) Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative? Land Econ 87:284-96.

Meyerhoff J., Liebe U. (2009) Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity. Land Econ 85: 515-528.

Morissin and Mc Donald 2012.

Narrain U., Gupta S., Klaas van't Veld (2008) Poverty and the environment: Exploring the relationship between household incomes, private assets, and natural assets. Land Econ 84(1):148-167.

Nunes P.A.L.D., Travisi, C.M. (2009) Comparing Tax and Tax Reallocation Payments in Financing Rail Noise Abatement Programmes: Results from a Stated Choice Valuation Study in Italy. Environ Resour Econ 43(4):503-517.

Olsen S.B, Lundhede T.H., Jacobsen J.B, Thorsen B.J. (2011) Tough and Easy Choices: Testing the Influence of Utility Difference on Stated Certainty-in-Choice in Choice Experiments, Environ Resour Econ, forthcoming.

Payne J.W., Bettman J.R, Schkade D.A. (1999) Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code. J Risk Uncertainty 19:243-70.

Poe G.L., Giraud K.L, Loomis J.B. (2005) Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions. Am J Agr Econ 87 (2): 353–365.

Remoundou K., Koundouri P., Kontogianni A., Nunes P.A.L.D, Skourtos M. (2009) Valuation of Natural Marine Ecosystems: An Economic Perspective. Environ Sci Policy 12:1040-51.

Renewable Development Initiative of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2006) Turkey, Country Profile. Available online at: http://ebrdrenewables.com/sites/renew/countries/turkey/profile.aspx, last accessed on November 2011.

Scarpa R., Ferrini S., Willis K. (2005). Performance of Error Component Models for Status-Quo Effects in Choice Experiments. In Scarpa, R., Alberini, A. (Eds.): Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Springer: Dordrecht, 247-273.

Swait J., Louviere J. (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30:305–314.

Taylor T., Longo A. (2010) Valuing algal bloom in the Black Sea Coast of Bulgaria: A choice experiments approach. J Environ Manag 91: 1963-1971

Transparency International (2010a) 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index, available online at: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results, last accessed on November 2011.

Transparency International (2010b) 2009 Global Corruption Parameters, available online at: http://www.transparency.org/, last accessed on November 2011.

United Nations Statistics Division (2010) Available online at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm, last accessed November 2011.

World Bank (2010) World Development Indicators. Washington DC.