Empirical Economics

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 1173–1192 | Cite as

Is the value of environmental goods sensitive to the public funding scheme? Evidence from a marine restoration programme in the Black Sea

  • Kyriaki Remoundou
  • Fikret Adaman
  • Phoebe Koundouri
  • Paulo A. L. D. Nunes


In this paper, we conduct choice experiments in Turkey and Ukraine 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. The first proposes financing 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. Furthermore, attribute values are sensitive to the trade-off implied by the funding scheme. The magnitude of the results differs in the two countries considered, because of their heterogeneity in political and cultural dimensions.


Black Sea Marine resources Public goods Stated choice experiment Tax revenues reallocation 

JEL Classification

H41 H50 Q51 Q57 



Authors would like to deeply thank Duygu Avcı (Boğaziçi University, Turkey), Dr. Olga Diukanova (Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, Venice) and Dr. Liliya Salomatina (Institute of Industrial Economics of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) for their assistance in questionnaires translation and surveys implementation in Turkey and Ukraine. We are also grateful to Prof Michalis Skourtos, Dr. Areti Kontogianni (Aegean University, Greece) and Dr. Olivia Langmead (University of Plymouth, UK) for valuable comments and input into the questionnaires design. Anna Dermitzaki assisted greatly in the development of the visual materials used in the surveys. Funding for the research presented in this paper has been provided by the SESAME FP 6 project (Southern European Seas: Assessing and Modelling the Changes in Ecosystems) and is gratefully acknowledged. We are also grateful to the editor and two anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions.


  1. Acar M, Ozgur H (2004) Training of civil servants in turkey: progress, problems, and prospects. Int J Public Admin 27:197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adaman F, Çarkoğlu A (2000) Türkiye’de Yerel ve Merkezi Yönetimlerde Hizmetlerden Tatmin, Patronaj İlişkileri ve Reform (reform, patronage networks and satisfaction from public services at the local and central levels: the case of Turkey). TESEV, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  3. Adaman F, Çarkoğlu A, Şenatalar B (2001) Hanehalkı Gözünden Türkiye’de Yolsuzluk (corruption in turkey from the perspective of household). TESEV, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  4. Adaman F, Karalı N, Kumbaroglu G, Or I, Özkaynak B, Zengonobuz U (2011) What determines urban households’ willingness to pay for CO\(_2\) emission reductions in Turkey: a contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy 39:689–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbier EB (ed) (2005) Natural resources and economic development. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett J, Birol E (eds) (2010) Choice experiments in developing countries: implementation, challenges and policy implications. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Bergstrom JC, Boyle KL, Yabe M (2004) Trading taxes versus paying taxes to value and finance public environmental goods. Environ Resour Econ 28:533–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhat CR (2001) Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp. Res. B 35:677–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 247 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Bond CA, Giraud-Cullen K, Larson DM (2009) Joint estimation of discount rates and willingness to pay for public goods. Ecol Econ 68:2751–2759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ 12:281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2005) Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett 89:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2009) Preferences with and without prices–does the price attribute affect behaviour in stated preference surveys? Environ Resour Econ 38:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Czajkowski M, Hanley N (2009) Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Environ Resour Econ 44:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44:123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dhar R, Simpson I (2003) The effect of forced choice on choice. J Mark Res 40:146–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ertör-Akyazı P, Adaman F, Özkaynak B, Zenginobuz Ü (2012) Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: evidence from Turkey. Energy Policy 47:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  19. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30:133–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Energy Agency (2008) Available online at:, last accessed on November 2011
  21. International Energy Agency (2012), Energy policies beyond IEA countries. Ukraine 2012.Google Scholar
  22. Independent International Experts Commission (2010) Proposals for Ukraine: 2010–time for reforms, Kyiv.Google Scholar
  23. Kaya D, Kılıç FÇ (2012) Renewable energies and their subsidies in Turkey and some EU countries–Germany as a special example. J Int Environ Appl Sci 7:114–127Google Scholar
  24. Kataria M (2009) Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers. Energy Econ 31:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Kragt ME (2013) The effects of changing cost vectors on choices and scale heterogeneity. Environ Resour Econ 54:201–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krinsky I, Robb LA (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68(4):715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lew DK, Wallmo K (2011) External tests of scope and embedding in stated preference choice experiments: an application to endangered species valuation. Environ Resour Econ 48:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. López R, Galinato GI, Islam A (2011) Fiscal spending and the environment: theory and empirics. J Environ Econ Manag 62(2):180–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luisetti T, Barteman IJ, Turner KR (2011) Testing the fundamental assumption of choice experiments: are values absolute or relative? Land Econ 87:284–296Google Scholar
  31. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2009) Status Quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ 85:515–528Google Scholar
  32. Morrison M, MacDonald DH (2011) A comparison of compensating surplus and budget reallocation with opportunity costs specified. Appl Econ 43:4677–4688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Narrain U, Gupta S, van’t Veld K (2008) Poverty and the environment: exploring the relationship between household incomes, private assets, and natural assets. Land Econ 84(1):148–167Google Scholar
  34. Nunes PALD, Travisi CM (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 43:503–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. OECD (2013) Ethics Training for public pfficials. Available online at:, last accessed on July 2013
  36. Olsen SB, Lundhede TH, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2011) Tough and easy choices: testing the influence of utility difference on stated certainty-in-choice in choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 49:491–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Schkade DA (1999) Measuring constructed preferences: towards a building code. J Risk Uncertainty 19:243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poe GL, Giraud KL, Loomis JB (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agr Econ 87(2):353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Remoundou K, Koundouri P, Kontogianni A, Nunes PALD, Skourtos M (2009) Valuation of natural marine ecosystems: an economic perspective. Environ Sci Policy 12:1040–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Renewable Development Initiative of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2006) Turkey, Country Profile. Available online at:, last accessed on November 2011
  41. 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, pp 247–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res 30:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swallow SK, McGonagle MP (2006) Public funding of environmental amenities: contingent choices using new taxes or existing revenues for coastal land conservation. Land Econ 82(1):56–67Google Scholar
  44. Taylor T, Longo A (2010) Valuing algal bloom in the Black Sea Coast of Bulgaria: a choice experiments approach. J Environ Manag 91:1963–1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Transparency International (2010a) 2010 Corruption perceptions index, available online at:, last accessed on November 2011
  46. Transparency International (2010b) 2009 global corruption parameters, available online at:, last accessed on November 2011
  47. United Nations Statistics Division (2010) Available online at:, last accessed November 2011
  48. World Bank (2010) World development indicators. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Yuksel I (2013) Renewable energy status of electricity generation and future prospect hydropower in Turkey. Renew Energy 50:1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyriaki Remoundou
    • 1
  • Fikret Adaman
    • 2
  • Phoebe Koundouri
    • 3
    • 4
  • Paulo A. L. D. Nunes
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Management and BusinessAberystwyth UniversityWales UK
  2. 2.Boğaziçi UniversityIstanbul Turkey
  3. 3.Department of International and European Economic StudiesAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthens Greece
  4. 4.Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the EnvironmentLondon School of Economics and BusinessLondonUK
  5. 5.WAVES—Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services, Agriculture and Environmental Services DepartmentThe World BankWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations