IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v105y2024i3p709-725.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trust, corruption, and willingness to pay for improved environmental goods: An experimental analysis from a developing country

Author

Listed:
  • Manuel A. Zambrano‐Monserrate

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to determine whether the type of provider institution affects the Willingness to Pay (WTP) of a population for an urban regeneration project. Methods This research conducts a discrete choice experiment under a split‐sample approach, conducting two types of surveys, with the only variation being the administering institution for the funds. Results The main findings indicate a significant difference in WTP between the sample associated with international non‐governmental organization (NGO) and the municipal sample. For example, the WTP of the population when the provider institution is an international NGO is almost six times higher than when the administering institution is the municipality, which is related to green spaces. The findings suggest that WTP may be underestimated because of the low levels of trust in local public institutions. Conclusion The findings of this study have significant implications for economic valuation and public‐policy development. Future research aiming to estimate WTP for environmental goods and services must carefully consider the choice of administering institutions. The sensitivity of WTP to the institutional context, particularly in developing countries, highlights the need for thorough discussions in focus groups and validation through pilot surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Manuel A. Zambrano‐Monserrate, 2024. "Trust, corruption, and willingness to pay for improved environmental goods: An experimental analysis from a developing country," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(3), pages 709-725, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:3:p:709-725
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13381
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13381?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2010. "Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: A meta-study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 366-374, December.
    2. Manuel A. Zambrano-Monserrate & Maria Alejandra Ruano & Carlos A. Silva & Ronald Campoverde & Christian Rosero & Daniel A. Sanchez-Loor, 2023. "Dynamism of the housing rental market in Guayaquil, Ecuador: an empirical analysis," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 747-764, February.
    3. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    4. Niklas Harring, 2013. "Understanding the Effects of Corruption and Political Trust on Willingness to Make Economic Sacrifices for Environmental Protection in a Cross-National Perspective," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 94(3), pages 660-671, September.
    5. Costanza, Robert, 2020. "Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    6. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    7. Robert Tinch & Nicola Beaumont & Tim Sunderland & Ece Ozdemiroglu & David Barton & Colm Bowe & Tobias Börger & Paul Burgess & Canon Nigel Cooper & Michela Faccioli & Pierre Failler & Ioanna Gkolemi & , 2019. "Economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services: a review for decision makers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 359-378, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Kim, Sung Hoo & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2023. "Finite mixture (or latent class) modeling in transportation: Trends, usage, potential, and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 134-173.
    11. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    12. Jeongmin Oh & Daewoong Lee, 2022. "Role of trust in government and collaboration in building disaster resilience," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(7), pages 1647-1658, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Sverker C. Jagers & Martin Sjöstedt & Aksel Sundström & Amanda Linell & Herbert Ntuli, 2021. "Trust, corruption, and compliance with regulations: Attitudes to rule violations in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2661-2675, November.
    15. Bronnmann, Julia & Asche, Frank, 2017. "Sustainable Seafood From Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries: Insights From a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 113-119.
    16. 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.
    17. Victor Champonnois, 2019. "How does trust in institutions affect protest responses in environmental valuation surveys?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(1), pages 446-452.
    18. Malte Oehlmann & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2017. "Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany – do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, January.
    19. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    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. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
    2. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    3. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    5. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    6. Knoefel, Jan & Sagebiel, Julian & Yildiz, Özgür & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2018. "A consumer perspective on corporate governance in the energy transition: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 440-448.
    7. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni & Howard, Gregory & Allen Klaiber, H. & Roe, Brian E., 2023. "Food choice behavior of adolescents under parent-child interaction in the context of US school lunch programs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    9. Li Cong & Yujun Zhang & Ching-Hui (Joan) Su & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Jinnan Wang, 2019. "Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Natali, F. & Cacchiarelli, L. & Branca, G., 2022. "There are plenty more (sustainable) fish in the sea: A discrete choice experiment on discarded species in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    14. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Diaz-Simal, Pedro & Koundouri, Phoebe & Rulleau, Bénédicte, 2015. "Valuing climate change mitigation: A choice experiment on a coastal and marine ecosystem," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 87-94.
    15. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    16. Cerroni, S. & Watson, V. & Macdiarmid, J., 2018. "Preferences for healthy and environmentally sustainable food: Combining induced-value and home-grown experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277155, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. 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.
    18. Wen Lin & David L Ortega & Vincenzina Caputo, 2023. "Experimental quantity, mental budgeting and food choice: a discrete choice experiment application," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(2), pages 457-496.
    19. Probst, Lorenz & Houedjofonon, Elysée & Ayerakwa, Hayford Mensah & Haas, Rainer, 2012. "Will they buy it? The potential for marketing organic vegetables in the food vending sector to strengthen vegetable safety: A choice experiment study in three West African cities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 296-308.
    20. Nakai, Miwa & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2024. "Preferences for dynamic electricity tariffs: A comparison of households in Germany and Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).

    More about this item

    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:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:3:p:709-725. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.