IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v66y2022i2p335-362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of social and personal norms on stated preferences for multiple soil functions: evidence from Australia and Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Cristiano Franceschinis
  • Ulf Liebe
  • Mara Thiene
  • Jürgen Meyerhoff
  • Damien Field
  • Alex McBratney

Abstract

Although soil degradation has become a global phenomenon that might severely threaten the provision of a large range of ecosystem services, not much is known about the economic value of soil functions such as carbon sequestration and rainfall water infiltration. Knowing these values would be an important input into the recently developed concept of Soil Security. This paper aimed at closing this gap for a broad set of soil functions valued at the regional level in the Veneto region in Italy and New South Wales in Australia. The study not only elicits non‐market values by a choice experiment but also investigates the impact of personal norm activation and social norms on stated preferences, by a hybrid choice model with multiple latent variables. As the survey was conducted in two countries, our study offers evidence of the external validity of both social norm effects and personal norm activation. The results reveal that respondents positively value the conservation of the soil functions and that both personal norm activation and social norm clearly affect stated preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristiano Franceschinis & Ulf Liebe & Mara Thiene & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Damien Field & Alex McBratney, 2022. "The effect of social and personal norms on stated preferences for multiple soil functions: evidence from Australia and Italy," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 335-362, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:66:y:2022:i:2:p:335-362
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8489.12466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12466
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-8489.12466?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jurgen Meyerhoff, 2006. "Stated willingness to pay as hypothetical behaviour: Can attitudes tell us more?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 209-226.
    2. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    3. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Andrea Koch & Alex McBratney & Rattan Lal, 2012. "Put soil security on the global agenda," Nature, Nature, vol. 492(7428), pages 186-186, December.
    6. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    7. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    8. Blamey, Russell, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the activation of environmental norms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 47-72, January.
    9. Vij, Akshay & Walker, Joan L., 2016. "How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable models are latently useful," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 192-217.
    10. Ndebele, Tom, 2020. "Assessing the potential for consumer-driven renewable energy development in deregulated electricity markets dominated by renewables," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    11. John McLean Bennett & Alex McBratney & Damien Field & Darren Kidd & Uta Stockmann & Craig Liddicoat & Samantha Grover, 2019. "Soil Security for Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, June.
    12. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    13. Alex. B. McBratney & Damien Field & Cristine L.S. Morgan & Jingyi Huang, 2019. "On Soil Capability, Capacity, and Condition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, June.
    14. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    15. Anna Bartczak & Petr Mariel & Susan Chilton & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2016. "The impact of latent risk preferences on valuing the preservation of threatened lynx populations in Poland," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 60(2), pages 284-306, April.
    16. Glenk, Klaus & Colombo, Sergio, 2013. "Modelling Outcome-Related Risk in Choice Experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1-20.
    17. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    18. Bicchieri,Cristina, 2006. "The Grammar of Society," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521574907.
    19. Andrea Koch & Alex McBratney & Mark Adams & Damien Field & Robert Hill & John Crawford & Budiman Minasny & Rattan Lal & Lynette Abbott & Anthony O'Donnell & Denis Angers & Jeffrey Baldock & Edward Bar, 2013. "Soil Security: Solving the Global Soil Crisis," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 4(4), pages 434-441, November.
    20. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    21. Kroesen, Maarten & Handy, Susan & Chorus, Caspar, 2017. "Do attitudes cause behavior or vice versa? An alternative conceptualization of the attitude-behavior relationship in travel behavior modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 190-202.
    22. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Social norm nudging and preferences for household recycling," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    23. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abiodun Olusola Omotayo & Peter Tshepiso Ndhlovu & Seleke Christopher Tshwene & Kehinde Oluseyi Olagunju & Adeyemi Oladapo Aremu, 2021. "Determinants of Household Income and Willingness to Pay for Indigenous Plants in North West Province, South Africa: A Two-Stage Heckman Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Luisa Fernanda Eusse-Villa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Alex McBratney & Damien Field, 2021. "Attitudes and Preferences towards Soil-Based Ecosystem Services: How Do They Vary across Space?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Scorrano, Mariangela & Danielis, Romeo, 2021. "Active mobility in an Italian city: Mode choice determinants and attitudes before and during the Covid-19 emergency," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    5. De Vos, Jonas & Witlox, Frank, 2017. "Travel satisfaction revisited. On the pivotal role of travel satisfaction in conceptualising a travel behaviour process," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 364-373.
    6. Aaditya, Bh. & Rahul, T.M., 2021. "Psychological impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the mode choice behaviour: A hybrid choice modelling approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 47-58.
    7. Kroesen, Maarten & Chorus, Caspar, 2020. "A new perspective on the role of attitudes in explaining travel behavior: A psychological network model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 82-94.
    8. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    9. Rosa Arroyo & Lidón Mars & Tomás Ruiz, 2018. "Perceptions of Pedestrian and Cyclist Environments, Travel Behaviors, and Social Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    10. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    11. Frauke Meyer & Hawal Shamon & Stefan Vögele, 2022. "Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Environmental Attitude, Willingness and Behavior in Germany from 1993 to 2021," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, December.
    12. Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2013. "Peer Effects In Pro-Social Behavior: Social Norms Or Social Preferences?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 548-573, June.
    13. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    14. Caserta, Maurizio & Distefano, Rosaria & Ferrante, Livio, 2022. "The Good of Rules: An experimental study on prosocial behavior," EconStor Preprints 266393, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    15. Francesco Fallucchi & Daniele Nosenzo, 2022. "The coordinating power of social norms," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-25, February.
    16. Iogansen, Xiatian & Wang, Kailai & Bunch, David & Matson, Grant & Circella, Giovanni, 2023. "Deciphering the factors associated with adoption of alternative fuel vehicles in California: An investigation of latent attitudes, socio-demographics, and neighborhood effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Engel, Christoph, 2021. "People are conditional rule followers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    18. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2015. "Desert and inequity aversion in teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 42-54.
    19. McBride, Michael & Ridinger, Garret, 2021. "Beliefs also make social-norm preferences social," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 765-784.
    20. Gustavo García-Melero & Rubén Sainz-González & Pablo Coto-Millán & Alejandra Valencia-Vásquez, 2021. "Sustainable Mobility Policy Analysis Using Hybrid Choice Models: Is It the Right Choice?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:66:y:2022:i:2:p:335-362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.