Environmental attitudes and place identity as simultaneous determinants of preferences for environmental goods

Economic valuation is frequently employed to provide evidence of people's preferences for environmental goods. However, it is also often criticised for providing a simplified representation of preferences, with many factors that affect value formation not accounted for. This is the case of environmental attitudes and especially place identity perceptions, which have been largely overlooked in economic valuation, despite representing amongst the most important drivers of people's behaviour towards the environment, according to the environmental psychology and sociology literature. To address this gap, we designed and conducted a choice experiment where we explored the simultaneous role of environmental attitudes and place identity perceptions on willingness to pay (WTP), taking peatland restoration in Scotland as a case study. This study adds to the existing literature in that no valuation study to date has simultaneously integrated both aspects in preference modelling. Given that both factors are potentially strong drivers of preferences, focusing only on one or the other provides a partial picture of the determinants of WTP. Moreover, we do not just look at 'generic' environmental attitudes, but also at ‘specific’ environmental attitudes. Our results, estimated through a novel and econometrically robust approach based on the hybrid choice model, show that people with more positive environmental attitudes and those who feel attached to Scotland and think that peatlands are an important part of Scotland's identity and landscape tend to display higher WTP. These findings are important to provide a richer understanding of the determinants of preferences for environmental goods. Our results also open up new insights to the discipline in relation to the spatial heterogeneity of preferences: we have shown that people do not only relate with the space around them by focusing on the distance to the improvement site, as most frequently postulated in valuation studies. The idea that place can be understood as a space with emotional and cultural meanings also plays a critical role in shaping preferences. All these are critical elements to better inform policy-makers in the design of more socially acceptable and effective environmental policies.

[1]  Nihat Aydenz,et al.  Planning and Management , 2021, Higher Education Abstracts.

[2]  J. Jacobsen,et al.  Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm , 2018 .

[3]  J. Martin-Ortega,et al.  The economics of peatland restoration , 2018 .

[4]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? , 2017 .

[5]  C. Noussair,et al.  Sad or Happy? The Effects of Emotions on Stated Preferences for Environmental Goods , 2017 .

[6]  I. Logar,et al.  Choice Consistency and Preference Stability in Test-Retests of Discrete Choice Experiment and Open-Ended Willingness to Pay Elicitation Formats , 2017 .

[7]  R. Johnston,et al.  Optimized Quantity-within-Distance Models of Spatial Welfare Heterogeneity , 2017 .

[8]  Drew E. Bennett,et al.  The Influence of Place on the Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services , 2017 .

[9]  G. Halkos,et al.  Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection , 2017 .

[10]  J. Martin-Ortega,et al.  How to make complexity look simple? Conveying ecosystems restoration complexity for socio-economic research and public engagement , 2017, PloS one.

[11]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Gain and loss of money in a choice experiment. The impact of financial loss aversion and risk preferences on willingness to pay to avoid renewable energy externalities , 2017 .

[12]  N. Hanley,et al.  Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[13]  N. Hanley,et al.  Personality and economic choices , 2017, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

[14]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preference methods , 2017 .

[15]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  THE IMPACT OF FINANCIAL LOSS AVERSION AND RISK PREFERENCES ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY TO AVOID RENEWABLE ENERGY EXTARNALITIES. GAIN AND LOSS OF MONEY IN A CHOICE EXPERIMENT. , 2017 .

[16]  G. Prati,et al.  The interplay among environmental attitudes, pro-environmental behavior, social identity, and pro-environmental institutional climate. A longitudinal study , 2017 .

[17]  J. Martin-Ortega,et al.  Conservation in the face of ambivalent public perceptions – The case of peatlands as ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’ , 2017 .

[18]  James R. Meldrum Comparing different attitude statements in latent class models of stated preferences for managing an invasive forest pathogen , 2015 .

[19]  Francisco J. Bahamonde-Birke,et al.  Analyzing the continuity of attitudinal and perceptual indicators in hybrid choice models , 2015 .

[20]  N. Hanley,et al.  Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: Preserving cold-water coral in Norway , 2015 .

[21]  Stephane Hess,et al.  Incorporating environmental attitudes in discrete choice models: an exploration of the utility of the awareness of consequences scale. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[22]  Jacob LaRiviere,et al.  The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods , 2015 .

[23]  R. Brouwer,et al.  Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: a test-retest , 2014 .

[24]  Wokje Abrahamse,et al.  Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour , 2014 .

[25]  Nick Hanley,et al.  The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good , 2014 .

[26]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Social Norms, Morals and Self-interest as Determinants of Pro-environment Behaviours: The Case of Household Recycling , 2014 .

[27]  Andrew D Smith,et al.  Who feels Scottish? National identities and ethnicity in Scotland , 2014 .

[28]  N. Hanley,et al.  Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model , 2014 .

[29]  N. Hanley,et al.  Quantifying Preferences for the Natural World Using Monetary and Nonmonetary Assessments of Value , 2014, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[30]  Natalia López-Mosquera,et al.  Direct and indirect effects of received benefits and place attachment in willingness to pay and loyalty in suburban natural areas , 2013 .

[31]  L. Steg,et al.  The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour , 2013 .

[32]  Kelly S. Fielding,et al.  Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species , 2013 .

[33]  Ricardo A. Daziano,et al.  Incorporating pro-environmental preferences towards green automobile technologies through a Bayesian hybrid choice model , 2013 .

[34]  Natalia López-Mosquera,et al.  Theory of Planned Behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory explaining willingness to pay for a suburban park. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[35]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Practical and empirical identifiability of hybrid discrete choice models , 2012 .

[36]  Simon Lambert,et al.  Cultural differences in environmental valuation , 2012 .

[37]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Test–Retest Reliability of Choice Experiments in Environmental Valuation , 2012 .

[38]  N. Hanley,et al.  The effect of risk perception on public preferences and willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by toxic cyanobacterial blooms. , 2012, The Science of the total environment.

[39]  Stephane Hess,et al.  Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago , 2012 .

[40]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Not bored yet – revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments , 2012 .

[41]  Des B. A. Thompson,et al.  IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands , 2011 .

[42]  M. Lewicka Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? , 2011 .

[43]  M. Hidalgo,et al.  The role of place identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws , 2010 .

[44]  C. Rollero,et al.  Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study , 2010 .

[45]  Taciano L. Milfont,et al.  The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes , 2010 .

[46]  Petr Mariel,et al.  The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: some empirical evidence. , 2009 .

[47]  C. Spash,et al.  Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology , 2009 .

[48]  Kelly S. Fielding,et al.  Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism , 2008 .

[49]  Maria L. Loureiro,et al.  Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife , 2007 .

[50]  Jennifer A. Thacher,et al.  Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity? , 2007 .

[51]  C. Spash Non-Economic Motivation for Contingent Values: Rights and Attitudinal Beliefs in the Willingness To Pay for Environmental Improvements , 2006, Land Economics.

[52]  Maria Johansson,et al.  The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice , 2006 .

[53]  Jennifer A. Thacher,et al.  Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model , 2006 .

[54]  J. Meyerhoff Stated willingness to pay as hypothetical behaviour: Can attitudes tell us more? , 2006 .

[55]  J. Walter Milon,et al.  Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration , 2006 .

[56]  Marino Bonaiuto,et al.  Environmental Concern, Regional Identity, and Support for Protected Areas in Italy , 2005 .

[57]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement , 2004 .

[58]  J. E. Stets,et al.  Bringing Identity Theory into Environmental Sociology* , 2003 .

[59]  M. Bonaiuto,et al.  Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas , 2002 .

[60]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges , 2002 .

[61]  Marit Vorkinn,et al.  Environmental Concern in a Local Context , 2001 .

[62]  Eija Pouta, Mika Rekola The Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Willingness to Pay for Abatement of Forest Regeneration , 2001 .

[63]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing , 1999 .

[64]  J. Bargh,et al.  The psychology of action : linking cognition and motivation to behavior , 1999 .

[65]  F. Kaiser,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE AND ECOLOGICAL BEHAVIOUR , 1999 .

[66]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[67]  N. Hanley,et al.  Stated Preference valuation methods: an evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy , 2017 .

[68]  William S. Neilson,et al.  Information and Learning in Stated-Preference Studies , 2016 .

[69]  I. Gordon,et al.  Water Ecosystem Services: A Global Perspective , 2015 .

[70]  R. Scholes,et al.  Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends , 2005 .

[71]  Matthew J. Kotchen,et al.  Random effects analysis , 2003 .

[72]  R. Dunlap,et al.  Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale , 2000 .

[73]  Icek Ajzen,et al.  The directive influence of attitudes on behavior. , 1996 .

[74]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  Report of the NOOA Panel on Contingent Valuation , 1993 .

[75]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .