Are Transboundary Nature Protected Areas International Public Goods and Why People Think They Are (Not)? Hybrid Modelling Evidence from the EU Outer Borders

Former studies have shown that transboundary nature protected areas are not perceived as pure international public goods by citizens in neighbouring countries that share national parks. In this study, we assess what drives the valuation of nature protection on the other side of the border in two European transboundary nature areas, the Białowieża Forest and Fulufjället. Applying hybrid choice modelling, we account for people’s attitudes when eliciting their preferences towards transboundary nature protected areas, and examine the impact of attitudes on the degree to which those preferences are consistent with the international public good hypothesis. We found that the intention of visiting the foreign part of the transboundary area, appreciation of transboundary justice and altruism, were the main drivers, whereas suspicious attitude towards the neighbouring country, propensity to free-ride, and manifestations of ‘patriotism’ applied as international public good mitigators to a limited degree only. Value of an extending the protection regime abroad was still positive for Scandinavians, whilst for Polish and Belarusian respondents a policy aiming at extending the protection abroad would lead to loss of human welfare. Facilitating visits of the foreign part by enhancing cross-border access can be expected to shift peoples’ preferences towards transboundary co-operation.