IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/teepxx/v7y2018i4p420-440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm

Author

Listed:
  • Fitalew Agimass Taye
  • Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel
  • Jette Bredahl Jacobsen

Abstract

In the environmental psychology literature, the new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale has been used to measure environmental attitude as a multidimensional concept. This study is conducted based on this multidimensionality concept to analyse willingness to pay for forest management targeting non-use value ecosystem services. In most previous studies, the NEP scale has been considered as a unidimensional measure and directly incorporated into the modelling. Here, we outline the relevance of considering such multidimensionality of the NEP scale using a different modelling procedure. This is performed following two modelling approaches (1) a random parameters logit model where the NEP score is incorporated directly and (2) a hybrid choice model in which latent variables identified from the NEP scale are incorporated in simultaneous equations setup. In both models, the environmental attitude influences preferences and willingness to pay estimates, but the first one ignoring the multidimensionality tends to exaggerate its impact. The hybrid choice model shows slightly lower statistical performance. However, in this model, the use of two latent variables reveal a non-uniform effect and thereby clearly shows the relevance of considering a multidimensional NEP scale for a better understanding of variations.

Suggested Citation

  • Fitalew Agimass Taye & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2018. "Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 420-440, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:teepxx:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:420-440
    DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2018.1467346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21606544.2018.1467346
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21606544.2018.1467346?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    2. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2020. "Nudging Acceptability for Wood Ash Recycling in Forests: A Choice Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    3. Fockaert, Lysander & Mathijs, Erik & Vranken, Liesbet, 2021. "Local Support for Agri-Environmental Measures and the Role of Knowledge and Environmental Attitudes," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315153, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Ayodeji P. Ifegbesan & Isaac T. Rampedi & Biodun Ogunyemi & Lee-Ann Modley, 2022. "Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviour amongst Citizens in African Countries: A Cross-National Study amongst Six African Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Agnieszka Lorek & Paweł Lorek, 2021. "Social Assessment of the Value of Forests and Protected Areas on the Example of the Silesian Voivodeship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, March.
    6. Stefania Tonin & Diego Benedetto, 2024. "Exploring Sustainability Concerns and Ecosystem Services: The Role of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale in Understanding Public Opinion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    8. Leonard Maaya & Michel Meulders & Nick Surmont & Martina Vandebroek, 2018. "Effect of Environmental and Altruistic Attitudes on Willingness-to-Pay for Organic and Fair Trade Coffee in Flanders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Haiyang Shang & Jiaojiao Fan & Bingjie Fan & Fang Su, 2022. "Economic Effects of Ecological Compensation Policy in Shiyang River Basin: Empirical Research Based on DID and RDD Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-28, March.
    10. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Bostedt, Göran & Stenger, Anne, 2019. "Determinants of forest owners attitudes towards wood ash recycling in Sweden - Can the nutrient cycle be closed?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy demand management and social norms – the case study in Poland," Working Papers 2020-25, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Abate, Tenaw G. & Börger, Tobias & Aanesen, Margrethe & Falk-Andersson, Jannike & Wyles, Kayleigh J. & Beaumont, Nicola, 2020. "Valuation of marine plastic pollution in the European Arctic: Applying an integrated choice and latent variable model to contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    13. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.
    14. Petr Mariel & Linda Arata, 2022. "Incorporating attitudes into the evaluation of preferences regarding agri‐environmental practices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 430-451, June.

    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:taf:teepxx:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:420-440. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/teep20 .

    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.