Theory of Planned Behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory explaining willingness to pay for a suburban park

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 113, Issue , 2012, Pages 251-262

  López Mosquera, Natalia ^a   Sánchez, Mercedes ^a  

^a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Environmental education; Psycho social motivations; Suburban park conservation stated preferences

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; RESOURCE VALUATION;

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION; PAPER ANALYSIS; PSYCHO-SOCIAL MOTIVATION; SOCIAL MOTIVATIONS; STATED PREFERENCES; SUBURBAN PARK CONSERVATION STATED PREFERENCE; SUBURBAN PARKS; THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR; VALUE-BELIEF-NORM THEORY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

PARKS;

ALTRUISM; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION; PARK MANAGEMENT; PLANNING THEORY; SAMPLING; SUBURBAN AREA; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ALTRUISM; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; BEHAVIOR THEORY; BIOSPHERE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; NATIONAL PARK; ORIENTATION; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; SOCIAL BELIEF; SPAIN; SUBURBAN AREA; THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR; VALUE BELIEF NORM THEORY;

EID: 84867064530     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.029     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26:271-292.
2. Ajzen I., Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior 1980, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
3. Ajzen I. Attitudes, Personality and Behavior 1988, Dorsey Press, Chicago.
4. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1991, 50:179-211.
5. Álvarez M.D., González M.G., Saavedra A.G., De Uña J.A. On dichotomous choice contingent valuation data analysis: semiparametric methods and genetic programming. Journal of Forest Economics 2010, 16:145-156.
6. Anderson J.C., Gerbing D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: a Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 1988, 103:411-423.
7. Bagozzi R.P., Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equations models. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 1988, 16:74-94.
8. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H., Rasbash J. Willingness to pay question format in contingent valuation studies. Hacienda Pública Española/Revista de Economía Pública 1999, vol. 177:83-115. J.E. Araña, C.J. León (Eds.).
9. Bernarth K., Roschewitz A. Recreational benefits of urban forests: explaining visitors' willingness to pay in the context of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Management 2008, 89:155-166.
10. Blamey R. Contingent valuation and the activation of environmental norms. Ecological Economics 1998, 24:47-72.
11. Brander L.M., Koetse M.J. The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. Journal of Environmental Management 2011, 92(10):2763-2773.
12. Chen W.Y., Jim C.Y. Valuation of nature: economic contribution of periurban protected areas in Guangzhou Baiyun Mountain Scenic Area. Sustainable Management of Protected Areas for Future Generations 2006, 59-75. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. C.Y. Jim, R.T. Corlett (Eds.).
13. Chen W.Y., Jim C.Y. Resident motivations and willingness-to-pay for urban biodiversity conservation in Guangzhou (China). Environmental Management 2010, 45:1052-1064.
14. Cooper P., Poe G.L., Bateman I.J. The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecological Economics 2004, 50:69-82.
15. Corraliza J.A., Berenguer J. Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: a situational approach. Environment and Behavior 2000, 32:832-848.
16. Cronbach L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
17. Del Saz-Salazar S., García-Menéndez L. Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: does proximity matter?. Land Use Policy 2007, 24:296-305.
18. Del Saz-Salazar S., Suárez C. El valor del uso recreativo de espacios naturales protegidos: aplicación del método de valoración contingente al Parque Natural de l'Albufera. Revista Española de Economía Agraria 1998, 182:239-272.
19. Del Saz-Salazar S., Rausell-Köster P. A double-hurdle model of urban green areas valuation: dealing with zero responses. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 84:241-251.
20. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised New Environmental Paradigm scale. Journal of Social Issues 2000, 56(3):425-442.
21. Fielding K.S., McDonald R., Louis W.R. Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2008, 28:318-326.
22. Ford R.M., Williams K.J.H., Bishop I.D., Webb T. A value basis for the social acceptability of clearfelling in Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 90:196-206.
23. Frör O. Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: empirical evidence using cognitive psychology. Ecological Economics 2008, 68:570-581.
24. García-Llorente M., Martín-López B., Montes C. Exploring the motivations of protesters in contingent valuation: insights for conservation policies. Environmental Science & Policy 2011, 14:76-88.
25. Gardner G.T., Stern P.C. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior 2002, Pearson Custom Publishing, Boston, MA. second ed.
26. González A., Amérigo M. Relationship between values, beliefs, norms and ecological behavior. Psicothema 2008, 20:623-629.
27. Groot J.I.M., Steg L. Relationships between value orientation, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioral intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2010, 30(4):368-378.
28. Gutman J. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing 1982, 46:60-72.
29. Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., Black W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis 1998, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. fifth ed.
30. Hanley N., Shogren J.F., White B. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice 1997, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
31. Hansla A., Gamble A., Juliusson A., Gärling T. The relationships between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2008, 28:1-9.
32. Hinds J., Sparks P. Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2008, 28:109-120.
33. Hines J.M., Hungerford H.R., Tomera A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education 1987, 18:1-18.
34. Hoyos D., Mariel P., Fernandez-Macho J. The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: some empirical evidence. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:2372-2381.
35. Joreskog K.G., Sorbom D. PRELIS: A Program for Multivariate Data Screening and Data Summarization 1988, A Preprocessor for LISREL, SSI, Chicago.
36. Jorgensen B.S., Wilson M.A., Heberlein T.A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecological Economics 2001, 36:133-148.
37. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. Contingent valuation and the value of public goods: reply. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22:90-94.
38. Kaiser F.G., Hübner G., Bogner F.X. Contrasting the theory of planned behaviour with value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology 2005, 35(10):2150-2170.
39. Kang I., Jeon S., Lee S., Lee C.-K. Investigating structural relations affecting the effectiveness of service management. Tourism Management 2005, 26(3):301-310.
40. Kniivilä M. Users and non-users of conservation areas: are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in contingent valuation surveys?. Ecological Economics 2006, 59:530-539.
41. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 2000, 32:93-107.
42. Liebe U., Preisendörfer P., Meyerhoff J. To pay or not to pay: competing theories to explain individuals' willingness to pay for public environmental goods. Environment and Behavior 2011, 43:106-130.
43. Lo A.Y., Jim C.Y. Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2010, 9:113-120.
44. López-Mosquera N., Sánchez M. The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: an application of the means-end chain theory. Tourism Management 2011, 32:875-889.
45. Mannetti L., Pierro A., Livi S. Recycling: planned and self-expressive behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24:227-236.
46. Martín-López B., Montes C., Benayas J. The non-economic motives behind willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 2007, 139:67-82.
47. Menzel S., Bögeholz S. Values, beliefs and norms that foster Chilean and German pupils' commitment to protect biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2010, 5(1):31-49.
48. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method 1989, Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington D.C.
49. Nordlund A.M., Garvill J. Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior 2002, 34:740-756.
50. Nordlund A.M., Garvill J. Effect of values, beliefs and personal norms on willingness to reduce car-use. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:339-347.
51. Nunnally J.C. Psychometric Theory 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York.
52. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife. Ecological Economics 2007, 63(4):807-814.
53. Olofsson A., Öhman S. General beliefs and environmental concern: transatlantic comparisons. Environment and Behavior 2006, 38:768-790.
54. Oreg S., Katz-Gerro T. Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: values, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Environment and Behavior 2006, 38:462-483.
55. Oskamp S. Applying social psychology to avoid ecological disaster. Journal of Social Issues 1995, 51(4):217-239.
56. Oskamp S. A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help?. American Psychologist 2000, 55:496-508.
57. Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., Johnson E.J. Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 1992, 43:87-131.
58. Pearce D.W., Turner R.K. Economics of the Natural Resources and the Environment 1990, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, UK, 378 pp.
59. Pearce D. Economics Values and the Natural World 1993, Earthscan, London, UK, 148 pp.
60. Peter J.P. Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research 1979, 16:6-17.
61. Pooley J.A., O'Connor M. Environmental education and attitudes: emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior 2000, 32(5):711-724.
62. Pouta E., Rekola M. The theory of planned behavior in predicting willingness to pay for abatement of forest regeneration. Society and Natural Resources 2001, 14:93-106.
63. Rokeach M. A theory of organizations and change in value-attitude systems. Journal of Social Issues 1968, 24:13-33.
64. Rosenberger R.S., Peterson G.L., Clarke A., Brown T. Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics. Ecological Economics 2003, 44:63-76.
65. Samnaliev M., Stevens T.H., More T. A comparison of alternative calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:507-519.
66. Sauer U., Fischer A. Willingness to pay, attitudes and fundamental values - on the cognitive context of public preferences for diversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Economics 2010, 70:1-9.
67. Schläpfer F., Roschewitz A., Hanley N. Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of individual contingent valuation survey response and voting behavior. Ecological Economics 2004, 51:1-16.
68. Schwartz S.H., Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1987, 53:550-562.
69. Schwartz S.H. Awareness of interpersonal consequences, responsibility denial and volunteering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1970, 30:57-63.
70. Schwartz S.H. Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1977, vol. 10:221-279. Academic Press, New York.
71. Silverman J., Klock M. The behavior of respondents in contingent valuation: evidence on starting bids. Journal of Behavioral Economics 1989, 18(1):51-60.
72. Spash C., Urama K., Burton R., Kenyon W., Shannon P., Hill G. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in water ecosystems: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:955-964.
73. Spash C.L. Ecosystems contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation. Ecological Economics 2000, 34:195-215.
74. Spash C.L. Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: coral reef biodiversity. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002, 23:665-687.
75. Spash C.L. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Economics 2006, 82(4):602-622.
76. Steg L., Dreijerink L., Abrahamse W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2005, 25:415-425.
77. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Kalof L., Guagnano G.A. Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1995, 25:1611-1636.
78. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Abel T., Guagnano G.A., Kalof L. A Value-Belief-Norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review 1999, 6:81-95.
79. Stern P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 2000, 56(3):407-424.
80. Sugden R. Anomalies and stated preferences techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 32:1-12.
81. Thøgersen J., Olander F. To what degree are environmentally beneficial choices reflective of a general conservation stance?. Environment and Behavior 2006, 38(4):550-569.
82. Tisdell C., Nantha H.S., Wilson C. Public Valuation of and Attitudes Towards the Conservation and Use of the Hawksbill Turtle: an Australian Case Study 2005, Working Paper No. 124, The University of Queensland.
83. Tonglet M., Phillips P.S., Read A.D. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth, UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2004, 41:191-214.
84. Torgler B., Garcia-Valinas M. The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing environmental damage. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:536-552.
85. Vatn A., Bromley D.W. Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26:129-148.
86. Veisten K. Contingent valuation controversies: philosophic debates about economic theory. Journal of Socio-Economics 2007, 36:204-232.
87. Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2004, 24:89-124.
88. Vlek C. Essential psychology for environmental policy making. International Journal of Psychology 2000, 35(2):153-167.
89. Wauters E., Bielders C., Poesen J., Govers G., Mathijs E. Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: an examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:86-94.
90. Widegregen O. The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environment and Behavior 1998, 30:75-100.
91. Winter D.D.N. Some big ideas for some big problems. American Psychologist 2000, 55(5):516-522.
92. Zografos C., Howarth R. Deliberative Ecological Economics. Ecological Economics and Human Well-being 2008, Oxford University Press.
93. Zoppi C. A multicriteria-contingent valuation analysis concerning a coastal area of Sardinia, Italy. Land Use Policy 2007, 24:322-337.