IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v280y2021ics0277953621003476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizen preferences regarding the public funding of projects promoting a healthy body weight among people with a low income

Author

Listed:
  • Mulderij, Lisanne S.
  • Hernández, José Ignacio
  • Mouter, Niek
  • Verkooijen, Kirsten T.
  • Wagemakers, Annemarie

Abstract

Overweight and obesity are a growing problem, especially among people with a low income. Policymakers aspire to alleviate this problem by implementing publicly funded projects. This study has three aims: 1) to explore citizen preferences regarding the public funding of projects promoting a healthy body weight among people with a low income, 2) to identify whether such preferences differ between citizens with a low income and those with a higher income, and 3) to identify the reasons underlying these preferences. We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) among 1053 Dutch citizens to achieve these aims. In an online choice experiment, respondents were asked to advise on the implementation of eight different projects that encourage a healthy body weight among citizens with a low income, with a total resource constraint of 100,000 euros. The projects were 1) lifestyle coaching including sports, 2) lifestyle coaching without sports, 3) local sports coach, 4) fruit and vegetable boxes, 5) bariatric surgery, 6) improving the living environment, 7) courses on healthy lifestyles, and 8) sports vouchers. We used the “Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value” model to estimate the preferences of respondents towards these eight projects. Fruit and vegetable boxes and sports vouchers were the most popular projects, while bariatric surgery was least popular. Respondents with a low income tended to spend less of the budget than respondents with a higher income. Respondent arguments for the choices they made were qualitatively analysed using inductive content analysis. They often mentioned the value judgements ‘importance’, ‘healthiness’ and ‘usefulness’, as well as project costs and efficacy, as reasons for their decisions. Policymakers could use the results to ensure their decisions on the allocation of public funding to projects that encourage a healthy weight among people with a low income are aligned with citizen preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Mulderij, Lisanne S. & Hernández, José Ignacio & Mouter, Niek & Verkooijen, Kirsten T. & Wagemakers, Annemarie, 2021. "Citizen preferences regarding the public funding of projects promoting a healthy body weight among people with a low income," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:280:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621003476
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621003476
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114015?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thijs Dekker & Paul (P.R.) Koster & Niek Mouter, 2019. "The economics of participatory value evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-008/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Niek Mouter & Jose Ignacio Hernandez & Anatol Valerian Itten, 2021. "Public participation in crisis policymaking. How 30,000 Dutch citizens advised their government on relaxing COVID-19 lockdown measures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-42, May.
    3. Mulderij, Lisanne S. & Wolters, Fieke & Verkooijen, Kirsten T. & Koelen, Maria A. & Groenewoud, Stef & Wagemakers, Annemarie, 2020. "Effective elements of care-physical activity initiatives for adults with a low socioeconomic status: A concept mapping study with health promotion experts," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    4. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Jan 2020.
    5. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "An introduction to Participatory Value Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-024/V, Tinbergen Institute, revised 15 Dec 2019.
    6. McConnell, K. E., 1997. "Does Altruism Undermine Existence Value?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 22-37, January.
    7. Bhat, Chandra R., 2008. "The multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: Role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 274-303, March.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/10510 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Fredric Jacobsson & Magnus Johannesson & Lars Borgquist, 2007. "Is Altruism Paternalistic?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 761-781, April.
    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. Norzitah Abdul Karim & Azhan Rashid Senawi & Amirul Afif Muhamat & Nurhuda Nizar & Norazlina Abd Wahab & Musaab Ab Kadir, 2023. "Do Economic Depressions Contribute to CO2 Emissions? An ARDL Bound Approach," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(2), pages 175-180, March.
    2. Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J. & Geigenmüller, Iris M. & Mouter, Niek & van Lierop, Dea S. & Ettema, Dick F., 2024. "How do I want the city council to spend our budget? Conceiving MaaS from a citizen's perspective … (as well as biking infrastructure and public transport)," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 96-104.
    3. Hernandez, Jose Ignacio & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar & Mouter, Niek, 2023. "Data-driven assisted model specification for complex choice experiments data: Association rules learning and random forests for Participatory Value Evaluation experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).

    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. Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J. & Geigenmüller, Iris M. & Mouter, Niek & van Lierop, Dea S. & Ettema, Dick F., 2024. "How do I want the city council to spend our budget? Conceiving MaaS from a citizen's perspective … (as well as biking infrastructure and public transport)," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 96-104.
    2. Boxebeld, Sander & Geijsen, Tom & Tuit, Charlotte & Exel, Job van & Makady, Amr & Maes, Laurence & van Agthoven, Michel & Mouter, Niek, 2024. "Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 341(C).
    3. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2006. "Cost Benefit Rules when Nature Counts," Working Papers in Economics 198, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised 09 May 2006.
    4. Endre Kildal Iversen & Kristine Grimsrud & Yohei Mitani & Henrik Lindhjem, 2022. "Altruist Talk May (also) Be Cheap: Revealed Versus Stated Altruism as a Predictor in Stated Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 681-708, November.
    5. Hernandez, Jose Ignacio & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar & Mouter, Niek, 2023. "Data-driven assisted model specification for complex choice experiments data: Association rules learning and random forests for Participatory Value Evaluation experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    6. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "An introduction to Participatory Value Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-024/V, Tinbergen Institute, revised 15 Dec 2019.
    7. Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2022. "The Basket-Based Choice Experiment: A Method for Food Demand Policy Analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
    9. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    10. Liu, Jianing & Wen, Xiao & Jian, Sisi, 2024. "Toward better equity: Analyzing travel patterns through a neural network approach in mobility-as-a-service," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 110-126.
    11. Maystre, Nicolas & Olivier, Jacques & Thoenig, Mathias & Verdier, Thierry, 2014. "Product-based cultural change: Is the village global?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 212-230.
    12. Winschel, Evguenia & Zahn, Philipp, 2012. "Effciency concern under asymmetric information," Working Papers 13-07, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    13. Lee, Sanghak & Thomas, Suman Ann & Allenby, Greg M., 2020. "An economic analysis of demand of the very poor," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 544-556.
    14. Menon Martina & Perali Federico & Veronesi Marcella, 2017. "“Leaving No Child Behind:” Preferences for Social Inclusion and Altruism," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, July.
    15. Castro, Marisol & Bhat, Chandra R. & Pendyala, Ram M. & Jara-Díaz, Sergio R., 2012. "Accommodating multiple constraints in the multiple discrete–continuous extreme value (MDCEV) choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 729-743.
    16. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    17. Ye, Xin & Garikapati, Venu M. & You, Daehyun & Pendyala, Ram M., 2017. "A practical method to test the validity of the standard Gumbel distribution in logit-based multinomial choice models of travel behavior," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 173-192.
    18. Ozonder, Gozde & Miller, Eric J., 2021. "Longitudinal investigation of skeletal activity episode timing decisions – A copula approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    20. Andre De Palma & Fay Dunkerley & Stef Proost, 2010. "Trip Chaining: Who Wins Who Loses?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 223-258, March.

    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:eee:socmed:v:280:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621003476. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.