Factors Influencing Compensation Demanded for Environmental Impacts Generated by Different Economic Activities
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Demanded Compensation
1.2. Chilean Economic Context
2. Aims and Hypothesis
- H1:
- Perceived risk depends negatively on trust in regulatory institutions. There is an effect upon this relationship of the economic activity and the affected environment.
- H1:
- Acceptability depends negatively on perceived risk and positively on social trust. There is an effect upon this relationship of the economic activity and the affected environment.
- H1:
- Compensation demanded depends negatively on public acceptability, positively on perceived risk and positively on trust in authorities. There is an effect upon this relationship of the economic activity and the affected environment.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Procedure and Participants
3.2. Survey Instrument
Scale | Question Description | Scale Points | |
---|---|---|---|
(1) | (7) | ||
Trust | How much trust do you have for the entities in charge of regulating the hazards to which the national population is exposed as a result of (name of hazard)? | Little Trust | A Lot of Trust |
Perceived Risk | In your opinion, to how much risk in general is the national population exposed as a result of (name of hazard)? | Little | A Lot |
Acceptability | We are inevitably exposed to various types of hazards that affect us in different forms and degrees. Given that, in your opinion, how acceptable is the risk to which the national population is currently exposed as a result of (name of hazard)? | Unacceptable | Acceptable |
Compensation Demanded | Compensation to society is a tool that can be applied, for example, in reforesting affected areas, cleaning and repairing aquifer resources, restoring degraded soil, monetary compensation to affected people, etc. In your opinion, how much should society be compensated in the case of (name of hazard)? | Little | A Lot |
3.3. Statistical Analysis
- μ = general mean
- = environment effect (atmosphere, lakes and rivers, ocean and soil)
- = economic activity effect (mining, fishing, agriculture and urban activities)
- = effect of the continuous variables (trust, perceived risk and acceptability)
- = interaction between environment affected and economic activity
- = error term
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
Economic Activity | Affected environment (Hazard) | CD | PA | PR | TA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mining | Atmospheric pollution due to | 5.95 (1.41) | 2.47 (1.73) | 5.39 (1.40) | 2.07 (1.41) |
Lakes and rivers polluted by | 5.95 (1.45) | 2.45 (1.71) | 5.30 (1.48) | 2.00 (1.40) | |
Soil pollution due to | 5.93 (1.42) | 2.55 (1.73) | 5.20 (1.50) | 2.01 (1.35) | |
Ocean pollution by | 5.93 (1.45) | 2.50 (1.78) | 5.22 (1.50) | 2.04 (1.36) | |
Urban | Atmospheric pollution due to | 5.85 (1.51) | 2.50 (1.78) | 5.72 (1.36) | 2.08 (1.42) |
Lakes and rivers polluted by | 5.75 (1.52) | 2.60 (1.82) | 5.36 (1.40) | 2.12 (1.38) | |
Soil pollution due to | 5.69 (1.61) | 2.58 (1.81) | 5.28 (1.45) | 2.06 (1.33) | |
Ocean pollution by | 5.68 (1.54) | 2.58 (1.74) | 5.17 (1.42) | 2.13 (1.37) | |
Fishing | Atmospheric pollution due to | 5.81 (1.47) | 2.67 (1.76) | 4.94 (1.51) | 2.15 (1.42) |
Lakes and rivers polluted by | 5.75 (1.52) | 2.69 (1.81) | 4.98 (1.53) | 2.11 (1.42) | |
Soil pollution due to | 5.67 (1.55) | 2.70 (1.70) | 4.65 (1.68) | 2.03 (1.35) | |
Ocean pollution by | 5.67 (1.53) | 2.76 (1.71) | 4.63 (1.62) | 2.11 (1.38) | |
Agriculture | Atmospheric pollution due to | 5.60 (1.50) | 2.85 (1.70) | 4.75 (1.53) | 2.14 (1.35) |
Lakes and rivers polluted by | 5.60 (1.55) | 2.76 (1.75) | 4.71 (1.62) | 2.15 (1.36) | |
Soil pollution due to | 5.60 (1.54) | 2.78 (1.72) | 4.70 (1.71) | 2.08 (1.35) | |
Ocean pollution by | 5.59 (1.53) | 2.81 (1.74) | 4.87 (1.48) | 2.19 (1.42) |
4.2. The Influence of Social Trust on the Perception of Risks (H1)
Predictor | Estimate | Std. Error | tobs | p(|t| > |tobs|) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 5.517 | 0.079 | 70.2 | 0.000 | |
continuous variable | |||||
Social Trust | −0.114 | 0.013 | −8.5 | 0.000 | |
: Economic activity a | |||||
Mining | −0.061 | 0.104 | −0.59 | 0.556 | |
Agriculture | −0.556 | 0.104 | −5.3 | 0.000 | |
Fishing | −0.295 | 0.104 | −2.8 | 0.005 | |
: Environment affected b | |||||
Atmosphere | 0.439 | 0.104 | 4.2 | 0.000 | |
Lakes and rivers | 0.086 | 0.104 | 0.82 | 0.411 | |
Soil | −0.108 | 0.104 | −1.0 | 0.298 | |
: Interactions between environment affected and economic activity | |||||
Mining × Atmosphere | −0.366 | 0.147 | −2.5 | 0.013 | |
Agriculture × Atmosphere | −0.464 | 0.147 | −3.2 | 0.002 | |
Fishing × Atmosphere | −0.777 | 0.147 | −5.3 | 0.000 | |
Mining × Lakes and rivers | 0.086 | 0.147 | 0.58 | 0.561 | |
Agriculture × Lakes and rivers | 0.072 | 0.147 | 0.49 | 0.626 | |
Fishing × Lakes and rivers | −0.120 | 0.147 | −0.82 | 0.414 | |
Mining × Soil | 0.086 | 0.147 | 0.58 | 0.561 | |
Agriculture × Soil | 0.143 | 0.147 | 0.97 | 0.330 | |
Fishing × Soil | −0.239 | 0.147 | −1.6 | 0.105 |
4.3. Acceptability and Its Relation to Perceived Risk and Trust in Authorities (H2)
Variable | Estimate | Std. Error | tobs | p(|t| > |tobs|) |
---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 3.201 | 0.092 | 34.8 | 0.000 |
continuous variable | ||||
Perceived risk | −0.213 | 0.014 | −15.8 | 0.000 |
Trust in authorities | 0.282 | 0.015 | 19.0 | 0.000 |
: Economic activity a | ||||
Mining | −0.165 | 0.058 | −2.9 | 0.004 |
Urban | −0.091 | 0.058 | −1.6 | 0.119 |
Fishing | −0.072 | 0.058 | −1.3 | 0.210 |
: Environment affected b | ||||
Atmosphere | −0.003 | 0.058 | −0.06 | 0.955 |
Lakes and rivers | 0.015 | 0.058 | 0.26 | 0.793 |
Soil | 0.027 | 0.058 | 0.47 | 0.636 |
4.4. Demanded Compensation and Its Relation to Perceived Risk and Acceptability (H3)
Variable | Estimate | Std. Error | tobs | p(|t| > |tobs|) |
---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 4.328 | 0.094 | 45.9 | 0.000 |
continuous variable | ||||
Perceived risk | 0.336 | 0.011 | 30.0 | 0.000 |
Acceptability | −0.094 | 0.019 | −5.0 | 0.000 |
Trust in authorities | −0.076 | 0.012 | −6.1 | 0.000 |
: Economic activity a | ||||
Mining | 0.315 | 0.082 | 3.8 | 0.000 |
Agriculture | 0.331 | 0.086 | 3.9 | 0.000 |
Fishing | 0.412 | 0.085 | 4.9 | 0.000 |
: Environment affected b | ||||
Atmosphere | 0.001 | 0.047 | 0.03 | 0.979 |
Lakes and rivers | 0.005 | 0.047 | 0.10 | 0.923 |
Soil | 0.019 | 0.047 | 0.41 | 0.681 |
: Interactions between environment affected and economic activity | ||||
Acceptability × Mining | −0.038 | 0.027 | −1.4 | 0.157 |
Acceptability ×Agriculture | −0.085 | 0.027 | −3.2 | 0.002 |
Acceptability × Fishing | −0.081 | 0.027 | −3.1 | 0.002 |
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Social Trust
5.2. The Influence of Social Trust on the Perception of Risks
5.3. Acceptability and Its Relation with Perceived Risk and Trust
5.4. Compensation Demanded and Its Relation with Perceived Risk, Acceptability and Trust in Authorities
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Slovic, P. Perception of Risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Renn, O.; Burns, W.J.; Kasperson, J.X.; Kasperson, R.E.; Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications. J. Soc. Issues 1992, 48, 137–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, J.; Slovic, P.; Mertz, C.K. Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository. Risk Anal. 1993, 13, 643–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozawa, S.; Stack, M.L. Public trust and vaccine acceptance-international perspectives. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2013, 9, 1774–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bronfman, N.; Vázquez, E.; Dorantes, G. An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 686–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutteling, J.; Hanssen, L.; van der Veer, N.; Seydel, E. Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Underst. Sci. 2006, 15, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, J.; Burns, W.; Mertz, C.K.; Slovic, P. Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model. Risk Anal. 1992, 12, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Gutscher, H.; Earle, T.C. Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. J. Risk Res. 2005, 8, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viklund, M. Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross-National Study. Risk Anal. 2003, 23, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siegrist, M.; Cvetkovich, G.T. Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000, 20, 713–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bratanova, B.; Morrison, G.; Fife-Schaw, C.; Chenoweth, J.; Mangold, M. Restoring drinking water acceptance following a waterborne disease outbreak: The role of trust, risk perception, and communication. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 43, 1761–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, J.H.; Song, C.H. Effects of trust and perceived risk on user acceptance of a new technology service. Soc. Behav. Pers. 2013, 41, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.A. A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29, 2093–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N.F. Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? Risk Anal. 2005, 25, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eiser, J.R.; Miles, S.; Frewer, L.J. Trust, perceived risk, and attitudes toward food technologies. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 2423–2433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronfman, N.C.; Jiménez, R.B.; Arévalo, P.C.; Cifuentes, L.A. Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energ. Pol. 2012, 46, 246–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanaka, Y. Major Psychological Factors Determining Public Acceptance of the Siting of Nuclear Facilities. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 34, 1147–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sjöberg, L. Local Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. Risk Anal. 2004, 24, 737–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, L.; Ban, J.; Sun, K.; Han, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Bi, J. The influence of public perception on risk acceptance of the chemical industry and the assistance for risk communication. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tortosa-Edo, V.; López-Navarro, M.A.; Llorens-Monzonís, J.; Rodríguez-Artola, R.M. The antecedent role of personal environmental values in the relationships among trust in companies, information processing and risk perception. J. Risk Res. 2013, 17, 1019–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satterfield, T.; Conti, J.; Harthorn, B.H.; Pidgeon, N.; Pitts, A. Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications for policy dialogues about emerging technologies. Sci. Public Policy 2013, 40, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronfman, N.C.; López-Vazquez, E.L.; Gutierrez, V.V.; Cifuentes, L.A. Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile. J. Risk Res. 2008, 11, 755–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumol, W.J.; Oates, W.E.; Bawa, V.S.; Bradford, D.F. The Theory of Environmental Policy; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Burrows, P. The Economic Theory of Pollution Control; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Cornes, R.; Sandler, T. The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Hanemann, W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8, 19–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, V.K. Estimating Economic Values for Nature : Methods for Non-Market Valuation; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, V.K. Can We Measure the Economic Value of Environmental Amenities? South. Econ. J. 1990, 56, 865–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cropper, M.L.; Oates, W.E. Environmental Economics—A survey. J. Econ. Lit. 1992, 30, 675–740. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, T.C.; Gregory, R. Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 28, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammond, K.R.; Anderson, B.F.; Sutherland, J.; Marvin, B. Improving Scientists’ Judgments of Risk. Risk Anal. 1984, 4, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J.L.; Thaler, R.H. Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. J. Polit. Econ. 1990, 98, 1325–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frey, B.S.; Oberholzer-Gee, F. The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. Am. Econ. Rev. 1997, 87, 746–755. [Google Scholar]
- Mansfield, C.; van Houtven, G.L.; Huber, J. Compensating for Public Harms: Why Public Goods Are Preferred to Money. Land Econ. 2002, 78, 368–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Earle, T.C. Trust in Risk Management: A Model-Based Review of Empirical Research. Risk Anal. 2010, 30, 541–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook Database, April 2013. Available online: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/index.htm (accesed on 2 April 2014).
- International Grand Thornton. Global Dynamism Index. 2013. Available online: http://www.grantthornton.global (accesed on 19 November 2014).
- Banco Central de Chile. Cuentas Nacionales de Chile 2008–2012 Versión Digital 2013; Banco Central de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2013; Available online: http://www.bcentral.cl/estadisticas-economicas/publicaciones-digitales/anuario_ccnn/pdf/Anuario2012.pdf (accesed on 2 April 2014). (In Spanish)
- Banco Central de Chile. Indicadores de Comercio Exterior 2013. Available online: http://bcentral.cl (accesed on 2 April 2014). (In Spanish)
- Centro de Análisis de Políticas Públicas. Informe País, Estado Del Medio Ambiente En Chile, 2008; Universidad de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2008; Available online: http://www.uchile.cl/documentos/descargar-informe-en-pdf-10-mb_64137_0_3917.pdf (accesed on 19 november 2014). (In Spanish)
- Franck, U.; Leitte, A.M.; Suppan, P. Multiple exposures to airborne pollutants and hospital admissions due to diseases of the circulatory system in Santiago de Chile. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 746–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cifuentes, L.A.; Vega, J.; Kopfer, K.; Lave, L.B. Effect of the fine fraction of particulate matter versus the coarse mass and other pollutants on daily mortality in Santiago, Chile. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2000, 50, 1287–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borregaard, N.; Bradley, T. Análisis de tres sectores exportadores chilenos. 1999, XV, 42–49. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Villagrán, C. Pascua Lama: Amenaza a la Biodiversidad; OCEANA: Santiago, Chile, 2006. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Viveros, H. Examining Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Mining Impacts and Corporate Social Responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urkidi, L. A glocal environmental movement against gold mining: Pascua–Lama in Chile. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 70, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, S.H.; Faircheallaigh, C.O. Extractive Industries, Environmental Performance and Corporate Social Responsibility. Green. Manag. Int. J. Corp. Environ. Strateg. Pract. 2007, 52, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerio de Minería. Plan de Descontaminación Complejo Industrial Las Ventanas (1992). D.S. N 252. 1992. Available online: http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=11529 (accesed on 2 April 2014). (In Spanish)
- Plan de Descontaminación para María Elena y Pedro de Valdivia (1999). Available online: http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=135782 (accesed on 2 April 2014). (In Spanish)
- Plan de descontaminación de la Fundición Hernán Videla Lira-Paipote (1995). Available online: http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=10563 (accesed on 2 April 2014). (In Spanish)
- Ministerio de Obras Públicas. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del proyecto “Embalse Punilla, VIII Región”; 2004. Available online: http://seia.sea.gob.cl/seia-web/ficha/fichaPrincipal.php?modo=ficha&id_expediente=6295 (accessed on 20 June 2015). (In Spanish)
- Agrocomercial AS Limitada. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del “Proyecto Agroindustrial del Valle de Huasco”; 2005. Available online: http://seia.sea.gob.cl/seia-web/ficha/fichaPrincipal.php?modo=ficha&id_expediente=1075666 (accessed on 20 June 2015). (In Spanish)
- Ministerio de Obras Públicas. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del proyecto “Embalse Puntilla del Viento, Comunas de Los Andes y San Esteban, V Región”; 2006. Available online: http://seia.sea.gob.cl/seia-web/ficha/fichaPrincipal.php?modo=ficha&id_expediente=1922537 (accessed on 20 June 2015). (In Spanish)
- Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente (CONAMA). Plan de Prevención y Descontaminación Atmosférica para la Región Metropolitana, (PPDA). D.S. N 16. 1998. Available online: http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=121128 (accessed on 2 April 2014). (In Spanish)
- Ministerio de Agricultura. Ley Sobre Recuperación del Bosque Nativoy Fomento Forestal. Public Law 20.283. 2007. Available online: http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=274894 (accesed on 2 April 2014). (In Spanish)
- Ministerio de la Secretaría General de la Presidencia. Ley Sobre Bases Generales del Medio Ambiente. Public Law 19.300. 1994. Available online: http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=30667 (accessed on 2 April 2014). (In Spanish)
- Lostarnau, C.; Oyarzún, J.; Maturana, H.; Soto, G.; Señoret, M.; Soto, M.; Rötting, T.S.; Amezaga, J. M.; Oyarzún, R. Stakeholder participation within the public environmental system in Chile: major gaps between theory and practice. J. Environ. Manage. 2011, 92, 2470–2478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kasperson, R.E.; Golding, D.; Tuler, S. Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks. J. Soc. Issues 1992, 48, 161–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cvetkovich, G.T.; Löfstedt, R. Social Trust and the Management of Risk; Earthscan Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, S.H. Trust, Risk and the Public: The Case of the Guelph Landfill Site. Can. J. Sociol. 1997, 22, 481–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jardine, C.G.; Banfield, L.; Driedger, S.M.; Furgal, C.M. Risk communication and trust in decision-maker action: a case study of the Giant Mine Remediation Plan. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmider, E.; Ziegler, M.; Danay, E.; Beyer, L.; Bühner, M. Is It Really Robust? Methodol. Eur. J. Res. Methods Behav. Soc. Sci. 2010, 6, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garson, D.G. GLM Univariate, ANOVA and ANCOVA; Statistical Associates Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, D.S. The Basic Practice of Statistics, 3rd ed.; W.H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Box, G.E.P.; Hunter, W.G.; Hunter, J.S. Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis and Model Building; Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Mulsow, S.; Grandjean, M. Incompatibility of sulphate compounds and soluble bicarbonate salts in the Rio Cruces waters: An answer to the disappearance of Egeria densa and black-necked swans in a RAMSAR sanctuary. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 2006, 2006, 5–11. [Google Scholar]
- OECD; ECLAC. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Chile 2005; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Siegrist, M.; Cvetkovich, G.; Roth, C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal. 2000, 20, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Galetovic, A.; Jordán, P. Santiago: ¿Dónde estamos?,¿Hacia dónde vamos? In Santiago. Dónde estamos y hacia dónde vamos; Galetovic, A., Ed.; Centro de Estudios Públicos: Santiago, Chile, 2006; pp. 87–146. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Siegrist, M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 2000, 20, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oyarzún, J.; Oyarzún, R. Minería Sotenible: Principios y Prácticas; GEMM-Aula: Madrid, Spain, 2011. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Hammitt, J.K.; Carroll, S.J.; Relles, D.A. Tort Standards and Jury Decisions. J. Legal Stud. 1985, 14, 751–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, A.; Peterson, M.A. Deep Pockets, Empty Pockets: Who Wins in Cook County Jury Trials; RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Hans, V.P.; Ermann, M.D. Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law Hum. Behav. 1989, 13, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacCoun, R. Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: an examination of the “Deep-pockets” Hypothesis. Law Soc. Rev. 1996, 30, 121–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gutiérrez, V.V.; Cifuentes, L.A.; Bronfman, N.C. Factors Influencing Compensation Demanded for Environmental Impacts Generated by Different Economic Activities. Sustainability 2015, 7, 9608-9627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7079608
Gutiérrez VV, Cifuentes LA, Bronfman NC. Factors Influencing Compensation Demanded for Environmental Impacts Generated by Different Economic Activities. Sustainability. 2015; 7(7):9608-9627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7079608
Chicago/Turabian StyleGutiérrez, Virna Vaneza, Luis Abdón Cifuentes, and Nicolás C. Bronfman. 2015. "Factors Influencing Compensation Demanded for Environmental Impacts Generated by Different Economic Activities" Sustainability 7, no. 7: 9608-9627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7079608