TY - JOUR
T1 - Willingness to pay for nature protection
T2 - Crowdfunding as a payment mechanism
AU - Cunha-e-Sá, Maria A.
AU - Nunes, Luís Catela
AU - Silva, Carina Vieira da
AU - Rosa, Renato
AU - Ortigão, Margarida
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was funded by Funda\u00E7\u00E3o para a Ci\u00EAncia e a Tecnologia (UIDB/00124/2020, UIDP/00124/2020 and Social Sciences DataLab, PINFRA/22209/2016), POR Lisboa and POR Norte (Social Sciences DataLab, PINFRA/22209/2016). The study was developed in the context of the MarES project (MarNoruega/0002/2016). Renato Rosa acknowledges funding from FCT under the Scientific Employment Stimulus (CEECIND/02230/2017). CeBER's research is funded by national funds through FCT\u2013 Funda\u00E7\u00E3o para a Ci\u00EAncia e a Tecnologia, I.P., Project UIDB/05037/2020
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/10
Y1 - 2024/10
N2 - In this study, we use a discrete choice experiment to elicit the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for preventing and mitigating the effects of oil spills on marine and coastal ecosystem services, along a particularly vulnerable coastal region of mainland Portugal. We used a split-sample design to analyze the differences between two payment vehicles (PV): a mandatory extra income tax and a voluntary contribution collected by a crowdfunding campaign with a provision point mechanism and a money-back guarantee. The difference between the two PVs is examined in a setting where the local population has a negative perception of the quality of institutions. We find that respondents are more willing to contribute when presented with the crowdfunding version. Also, regardless of the payment vehicle, respondents who express a mistrust in institutions are more likely to choose the status quo. These results suggest the potential of using crowdfunding to support ecosystem services’ conservation initiatives.
AB - In this study, we use a discrete choice experiment to elicit the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for preventing and mitigating the effects of oil spills on marine and coastal ecosystem services, along a particularly vulnerable coastal region of mainland Portugal. We used a split-sample design to analyze the differences between two payment vehicles (PV): a mandatory extra income tax and a voluntary contribution collected by a crowdfunding campaign with a provision point mechanism and a money-back guarantee. The difference between the two PVs is examined in a setting where the local population has a negative perception of the quality of institutions. We find that respondents are more willing to contribute when presented with the crowdfunding version. Also, regardless of the payment vehicle, respondents who express a mistrust in institutions are more likely to choose the status quo. These results suggest the potential of using crowdfunding to support ecosystem services’ conservation initiatives.
KW - Crowdfunding
KW - Environmental protection
KW - Discrete choice experiment
KW - Payment vehicle
KW - Perceived quality of institutions
KW - O35
KW - Q01
KW - Q58
KW - H23
KW - Q51
KW - Q53
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85206846641&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-024-00933-3
DO - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-024-00933-3
M3 - Article
SN - 0924-6460
JO - Environmental & Resource Economics
JF - Environmental & Resource Economics
ER -