Impuestos y protección medioambientalpreferencias individuales en Europa

  1. García Valiñas, María Angeles 1
  2. Torgler, Benno 2
  1. 1 Toulouse School of Economics
    info

    Toulouse School of Economics

    Tolosa, Francia

    ROR https://ror.org/00ff5f522

  2. 2 Queensland University of Technology
    info

    Queensland University of Technology

    Brisbane, Australia

    ROR https://ror.org/03pnv4752

Revista:
Revista de economía aplicada

ISSN: 1133-455X

Año de publicación: 2010

Volumen: 18

Número: 54

Páginas: 107-132

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista de economía aplicada

Resumen

El presente trabajo tiene como finalidad analizar las preferencias que los individuos muestran respecto a la protección del medioambiente, vía aceptación de incrementos impositivos que permitan a los diferentes Estados obtener ingresos a fin de implementar políticas de preservación del entorno natural. Para ello, se ha planteado la aplicación de modelos probit a una muestra representativa de individuos pertenecientes a diferentes países europeos durante la década de los 90, procedente de las bases de datos World Values Survey y European Values Survey. Los resultados ponen de manifiesto la influencia de factores heterogéneos, tales como la educación, la renta, actitudes políticas o el capital social, identificando de esta manera los grupos sociales con mayor predisposición a contribuir económicamente a la conservación del entorno natural.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Blomquist, G.C. y Whitehead, J.C. (1998): "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation", Resource and Energy Economics,n°20, págs. 179-196.
  • Bord, R. J. y O'Connor, R. E. (1997): "The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk", Social Science Quarterly,n°78, págs. 830-840.
  • Bulte, E., Gerking, S., List, J.A. y De Zeeuw, A. (2005): "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,n°49(2), págs. 330-342.
  • Bussel, H. y Forbes, D. (2003): "Understanding the volunteer market: the what, where, who and why of volunteering", International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,n°7(3), págs. 244-257.
  • Cameron, T.A. y Englin, J. (1997): "Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,n°33, págs. 296-313.
  • Carson, R.T. y Mitchell, R.C. (1995): "Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,n°28, págs. 155-173.
  • Carlsson, F. y Johansson-Stenman, O. (2000): "Willingness to pay for improved air quality in Sweden", Applied Economics,n°32, págs. 661-669.
  • Danielson, L., Hoban, T.J., Van Houtven, G. y Whitehead, J.C. (1995): "Measuring the benefits of local public goods: environmental quality in Gaston County, North Carolina", Applied Economics,n°27, págs. 1253-1260.
  • Diamond, P.A. y Hausman, J. (1994): "Contingent valuation: is some number better thann°number?", Journal of Economic Perspectives,n°8, págs. 45-64.
  • Dupont, D.P. (2004): "Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation", Ecological Economics,n°49, págs. 273-286.
  • Engel, U. y Pötschke, M. (1998): "Willingness to pay for the environment: social structure, value orientations and environmental behaviour in a multilevel perspective", Innovation,n°11(3), págs. 315-332.
  • Franzen, A. (2003): "Environmental attitudes in international comparison: An analysis of the ISSP surveys 1993 and 2000", Social Science Quarterly,n°84, págs. 297-308.
  • Greene, W.H. (2003): Econometric Analysis, 5th Edition, New York, Prentice Hall.
  • Hidano, N., Kato, T. y Aritomi, M. (2005): "Benefits of participating in contingent valuation mail surveys and their effects on respondent behaviour: a panel analysis", Ecological Economics,n°52, págs. 63-80.
  • Howell, S.E. y Laska, L.B. (1992): "The changing face of the environmental coalition: a research note", Environment and Behavior,n°24, págs 134-144.
  • Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A. y Johnson, A. (2004): "Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors", Social Science Quarterly,n°85, págs. 677-694.
  • Israel, D. y Levinson, A. (2004): "Willingness to pay for environmental quality: testable empirical implications of the growth and environmental literature", Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy,n°3(1), art. 2.
  • MMA (2007): Análisis Preliminar de la Huella Ecológica en España, Madrid, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.
  • Neumayer, E. (2003): "Are left-wing party strength and corporatism good for the environment? a panel analysis of 21 OECD countries, 1980-1998", Ecological Economics,n°45 (2), págs. 203-220.
  • Nord, M., Luloff, A.E. y Bridger, J.C. (1998): "The association of forest recreation with environmentalism", Environment and Behavior,n°30, págs. 235-246.
  • Paldam, M. (2000): "Social capital: One or many? Definition and measurement", Journal of Economic Surveys,n°14, págs. 629-653.
  • Popp, D. (2001): "Altruism and the demand for environmental quality", Land Economics,n°77(3), págs. 339-349.
  • Stevens, T.H., More, T.A. y Glass, R.J. (1994): "Interpretation and temporal stability of CV bids for wildlife existence: a panel study", Land Economics,n°70(3), págs. 355-363.
  • Tittle, C. (1980): Sanctions and Social Deviance: The Question of Deterrence, New York, Praeger.
  • Tyler, T.R. (2000): "Why do people cooperate in groups?", in: Van Vught, M., Snyder, Tyler, M.T.R y Biel, A. (eds.), Cooperation in Modern Society. Promoting the Welfare of Communities, States and Organizations, págs. 65-82, London, Routledge.
  • Uriel, E. y Barberán, R. (2007): Las Balanzas Fiscales de las Comunidades Autónomas con la Administración Pública Central (1991-2005), Bilbao, Fundación BBVA.
  • Veisten, K., Hoen, H.F., Navrud, S. y Strand, J. (2004): "Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities", Journal of Environmental Management,n°73, págs. 317-331.
  • Vlosky, D.A. y R.P. Vlosky (1999): Exploring Age-Related Environmental Attitudes in the Context of Wood Product Certification, Working Papern°51, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center.
  • Whitehead, J.C. (1991): "Environmental interest group behaviour and self-selection bias in contingent valuation mail surveys", Growth and Change,n°22(1), págs. 10-21.
  • Witzke, H.P. y Urfei, G. (2001): "Willingness to pay for environmental protection in Germany: coping with the regional dimension", Regional Studies,n°35(3), págs. 207-214.
  • WWF (2004): Living Planet Report 2004, Gland,World Wildlife Fund.
  • Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P.P. y Aldrich, C. (2000): "Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism", Journal of Social Issues,n°56, págs. 443-457.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet