Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 381-395

  Remoundou, Kyriaki ^a   Kountouris, Yiannis ^b   Koundouri, Phoebe ^c  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Greece)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Forest fires; Forest resources; Institutional context

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; EUROPEAN COMMISSION; FOREST FIRES; FOREST RESOURCES; FOREST RESTORATION; INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT; NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS; PUBLIC GOODS; SHEER SIZE; SPLIT-SAMPLE; STATED PREFERENCES; TRUST LEVEL; UTILITY MODEL; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY ESTIMATES;

CONSERVATION; DEFORESTATION; EXPERIMENTS;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

EUROPEAN COMMISSION; FOREST FIRE; FOREST RESOURCE; PUBLIC GOODS; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CONSERVATION; DEFORESTATION; EXPERIMENTATION; FOREST FIRES;

EID: 84860341826     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. 2 emission reductions in Turkey: a contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy 2011, 39:689-698.
2. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80(1):64-75.
3. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., özdemiroglu E., Pearce D., Sugden R., Swanson R. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
4. Bergstrom J.C., Boyle K.J., Yabe M. Trading taxes vs. paying taxes to value and finance public environmental goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 2004, 28:533-549.
5. Bond C.A., Giraud-Cullen K., Larson D.M. Joint estimation of discount rates and willingness to pay for public goods. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:2751-2759.
6. Campbell D., Scarpa R., Hutchinson G.W. Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 2008, 1(2):117-126.
7. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Economics 2003, 12:281-294.
8. Cummings R.D., Taylor L.O. Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys?. Land Economics 1998, 74(2):203-215.
9. Czajkowski M., Hanley N. Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 44(4):521-535.
10. Diamond P.A., Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, 8(4):45-64.
11. Dietz, S., Atkinson, G., 2009. The equity-efficiency trade-off in environmental policy: evidence from stated preferences. Available at SSRN: . http://ssrn.com/abstract=1338176.
12. Forest Service of Parnitha. Available at: (accessed January 2010). http://www.parnitha-np.gr/.
13. Groothuis P.A., Miller G. The role of social distrust in risk-benefit analysis: a study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1997, 15:241-257.
14. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
15. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press.
16. Johnston R., Swallow S.K., Weaver T. Estimating willingness to pay and resource tradeoffs with different payment mechanisms: an evaluation of a funding guarantee for watershed management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1999, 38:97-120.
17. Jacobsen J.B., Thorsen B.J. Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1532-1544.
18. Jorgensen B.S., Syme G.J. Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for storm water pollution abatement. Ecological Economics 2000, 33(2):251-265.
19. Kaval P., Loomis J.B., Seidl A. Willingness-to-pay for prescribed fire in the Colorado (USA) wildland urban interface. Forest Policy and Economics 2007, 9:928-937.
20. Krinsky I., Robb L.A. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 1986, 68(4):715-719.
21. Kontoleon, A., Yabe, M., Darby, L., 2005. Alternative payment vehicles in contingent valuation: the case of genetically modified foods. Presented in the EAERE Conference 2005. Available at: (accessed January 2010). http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1827/.
22. Loomis J.B., Gonzalez-Caban A. A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire. Ecological Economics 1998, 25:315-322.
23. Loomis J.B. Do nearby forest fires cause a reduction in residential property values?. Journal of Forest Economics 2004, 10:149-157.
24. Luisetti T., Barteman I.J., Turner K.R. Testing the fundamental assumption of choice experiments: are values absolute or relative?. Land Economics 2011, 87:284-296.
25. Meyerhoff J., Liebe U. Status-quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Economics 2009, 85(3):515-528.
26. Meyerhoff J., Liebe U. Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2008, 39:433-446.
27. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 1989, John Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Washington.
28. Morrison M.D., Blamey R.K., Bennett J.W. Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics 2000, 16:407-422.
29. Nunes P.A.L.D., Travisi C.M. Comparing tax and tax reallocation payments in financing rail noise abatement programmes: results from a stated choice valuation study in Italy. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 43(4):503-517.
30. Poe G.L., Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 87(2):353-365.
31. Powe N., Bateman I.J. Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Economics 2004, 80:258-271.
32. Randall A. Human preferences, economics, and the preservation of species. The Preservation of Species 1986, Princeton University Press, Princeton. B.G. Norton (Ed.).
33. Riera P., Mogas J. Evaluation of a risk reduction in forest fires in a Mediterranean region. Forest Policy and Economics 2004, 6:521-528.
34. Riera P., Penuelas J., Farreras V., Estiarte M. Valuation of climate-change effects on Mediterranean shrublands. Ecological Applications 2007, 17(1):91-100.
35. Rolfe, Bennett J., Louviere J. Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: testing for framing effects with choice modelling. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2002, 46(1):1-20.
36. Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1988, 1:7-59.
37. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 90:994-1010.
38. Scarpa R., Ferrini S., Willis K. Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 247-273. Springer, Dordrecht. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
39. Schlapfer F. Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:415-429.
40. Swait J., Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 1993, 30(3):305-314.
41. Train K.E., Weeks M. Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. Application of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 1-16. Springer, Dordrecht. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
42. Transparency International, 2010. 2009 global corruption parameters. Available online at: (accessed on May 2010). http://www.transparency.org/.
43. Vaux H.J., Gardner P., Mills T.J. Methods for Assessing the Impact of Fire on Forest Recreation. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-79 1984, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA.
44. Whittington D. Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:323-367.
45. WWF Greece, 2007a. Ecological assessment of the wildfires of June 2007 in the Parnitha. Available at the official website of WWF Greece: (accessed November 2009, in Greek). http://politics.wwf.gr/images/stories//fireparnisreport2007_14.pdf.
46. WWF Greece, 2007b. Basic principles for the protection and management of the National Park of Parnitha after the wildfires. Available at the official website of WWF Greece: (accessed November 2009, in Greek). http://politics.wwf.gr/images/stories/political/dasikipolitiki/masterplanparnes.pdf.