IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unl/unlfep/wp657.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Crowdfunding vs. Taxes: Does the payment vehicle influence WTP for Ecosystem Services protection?

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Antonieta Cunha-e-Sa
  • Til Dietrich
  • Ana Faria
  • Luis Catela Nunes
  • Margarida Ortigao
  • Renato Rosa
  • Carina Vieira da Silva

Abstract

The effect of the payment vehicle (PV) on economic valuation estimates has been addressed since the early literature on stated preferences studies. Particularly, some studies have focused on willingness to pay (WTP) sensitivity to mandatory/collective vs. voluntary/individual PVs, by comparing tax increases or redistribution based on specific taxes with donation-like contributions. These two payment schemes may induce different types of strategic behavior and eventually free riding by the economic agents involved. We conducted a choice experiment through a face-to-face survey held in 2020 for a representative sample of the Portuguese population. We investigate the national population’s WTP to invest in oil spills’ prevention along the coastline of mainland Portugal to ensure the provision of four marine and coastal ecosystem services (MCES): (1) biodiversity conservation, (2) beach use, (3) coastal protection and (4) surf. We used a split-sample design to test for differences between the two PVs considered, a mandatory income tax and a voluntary contribution collected through a crowdfunding campaign. We estimate a mixed logit model (MXL) in WTP-space. Furthermore, we control for several sociodemographic characteristics to capture the influence of respondents’ heterogeneity on the elicited WTP, and to check the robustness of our results. We find that mean WTP estimates are positive and significant for all ES except for surf. Biodiversity conservation has the highest WTP estimate. The results obtained suggest that the lack of trust in institutions, fairness concerns and disbelief in policy consequentiality seem to be intrinsic to the Portuguese population, influencing WTP regardless of the PV. However, when comparing an extra income tax with a crowdfunding campaign, respondents have a lower preference for the status quo in this latter case. Therefore, our results highlight the importance of better understanding the role that the payment vehicle may play in funding ecosystem services’ conservation. This is important since how populations respond to incentives for sustainability purposes is crucial to ensure that the targets are met in a more efficient (or cost-effective) and equitable way.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Antonieta Cunha-e-Sa & Til Dietrich & Ana Faria & Luis Catela Nunes & Margarida Ortigao & Renato Rosa & Carina Vieira da Silva, 2023. "Crowdfunding vs. Taxes: Does the payment vehicle influence WTP for Ecosystem Services protection?," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp657, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:unl:unlfep:wp657
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/149241/1/WP657.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hudik, Marek & Chovanculiak, Robert, 2018. "Private provision of public goods via crowdfunding §," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 23-44, February.
    2. Alberto Alesina & Stefanie Stantcheva & Edoardo Teso, 2018. "Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 521-554, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Rondeau, Daniel & D. Schulze, William & Poe, Gregory L., 1999. "Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 455-470, June.
    5. Blanco, Esther & Lopez, Maria Claudia & Coleman, Eric A., 2012. "Voting for environmental donations: Experimental evidence from Majorca, Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 52-60.
    6. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2009. "The Payment Vehicle Used in CV Studies of Environmental Goods Does Matter," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Rowe, Robert D. & D'Arge, Ralph C. & Brookshire, David S., 1980. "An experiment on the economic value of visibility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    9. Per Espen Stoknes & Olav B. Soldal & Sissel Hansen & Ingvar Kvande & Sylvia Weddegjerde Skjelderup, 2021. "Willingness to Pay for Crowdfunding Local Agricultural Climate Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    10. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
    11. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    12. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    13. M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
    14. Knut Veisten & Ståle Navrud, 2006. "Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(7), pages 735-756.
    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. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    2. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    3. Voltaire, Louinord, 2012. "Effet d’une taxe et d’un droit d’entrée sur les consentements à payer des touristes pour de nouvelles réserves naturelles dans le golfe du Morbihan," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 92(02), pages 183-209, October.
    4. Louinord Voltaire & Abdelhak Nassiri & Denis Bailly & Jean Boncoeur, 2011. "Effet d’une taxe et d’un droit d’entrée sur les consentements à payer des touristes pour de nouvelles réserves naturelles dans le golfe du Morbihan," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(2), pages 183-209.
    5. 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.
    6. Glenn Bush & Nick Hanley & Mirko Moro & Daniel Rondeau, 2013. "Measuring the Local Costs of Conservation: A Provision Point Mechanism for Eliciting Willingness to Accept Compensation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 490-513.
    7. Funahashi, Hiroaki & Shibli, Simon & Sotiriadou, Popi & Mäkinen, Jarmo & Dijk, Bake & De Bosscher, Veerle, 2020. "Valuing elite sport success using the contingent valuation method: A transnational study," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 548-562.
    8. Litvine, Dorian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2011. "Helping "light green" consumers walk the talk: Results of a behavioural intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 462-474, January.
    9. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Elcin Akcura, 2013. "Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity," Working Papers 161, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Office of the Chief Economist.
    12. Herbes, Carsten & Friege, Christian & Baldo, Davide & Mueller, Kai-Markus, 2015. "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 562-572.
    13. Voltaire, Louinord & Pirrone, Claudio & Bailly, Denis, 2013. "Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 76-85.
    14. Suziana Hassan & Søren Bøye Olsen & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2018. "Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Economies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 1053-1075, December.
    15. Stithou, Mavra, 2009. "Respondent Certainty and Payment Vehicle Effect in Contingent Valuation: an Empirical Study for the Conservation of Two Endangered Species in Zakynthos Island, Greece," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2009-21, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    16. Soliño, Mario & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2009. "Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: Does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 531-540, February.
    17. Lyssenko, Nikita & Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2009. "`Been there done that': Disentangling option value effects from user heterogeneity when valuing natural resources with a use component," MPRA Paper 21976, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Apr 2010.
    18. Bernd Süssmuth, 2012. "The Econometric Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Intangibles with Experience Good Character," Chapters, in: Wolfgang Maennig & Andrew Zimbalist (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Mega Sporting Events, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    20. Schleich, Joachim & Alsheimer, Sven, 2024. "The relationship between willingness to pay and carbon footprint knowledge: Are individuals willing to pay more to offset their carbon footprint if they learn about its size and distance to the 1.5 °C," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choice experiment; Oil spills; marine and costal ecosystem services (MCES); Payment vehicle;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:unl:unlfep:wp657. 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: Susana Lopes (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feunlpt.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.