Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2016-05
Willingness to pay for preserving local beaches: the role of framing,attitudes and local identification / Voluntad de pagar para preservar las playas locales: el papel del encuadre,la actitud y la identificación local
This research concerns the impact of cognitive (i.e., framing issues) and psychosocial (i.e., environmental attitudes and place identity) dimensions on people’s Willingness To Pay (WTP) for preservation and improvement of a ‘local’ environmental public good, i.e., local beaches. After a pilot study, a field experiment (N = 102) was carried out in order to verify the effects on WTP of: (1) the reminder about the involvement of other people for preserving ‘local’ beaches; (2) attitudes towards the environmental good; and (3) local identity. Results confirmed the reminder effect, so that individuals reminded of other contributors are willing to pay less than individuals who were not reminded. Positive attitudes towards local beaches are associated to higher WTP for preserving them, but this emerged only in those residents showing a higher local identification.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2.
BaronJ.MaxwellN. P. (1996). Cost of public goods affects willingness to pay for them. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 173–183. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
3.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
4.
BatemanI. J.WillisK. G. (1999). Valuing environmental preferences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BerrensR. P.Jenkins-SmithH.BoharaA. K.SilvaC. L. (2002). Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: Fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 144–168. doi:10.1006/jeem.2001.1193
6.
BonaiutoM.BilottaE.BonnesM.CarrusG.CeccarelliM.MartorellaH. (2008). Local identity and the role of individual differences in the use of natural resources: The case of water consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 947–967. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00333.x
7.
BonaiutoM.BreakwellG. M.CanoI. (1996). Identity processes and environmental threat: The effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 157–175. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199608)6:3<157::AID-CASP367>3.0.CO;2-W
8.
BoniniN.BielA.GärlingT.KarlssonN. (2002). Influencing what the money is perceived to be worth: Framing and priming in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 655–663. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00122-8
9.
BrewerM. B.KramerR. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543–549. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543
10.
BrownR. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems, and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778. doi:10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<>1.0.CO;2-U
11.
CarrusG.BonaiutoM.BonnesM. (2005). Environmental concern, regional identity, and support for protected areas in Italy. Environment and Behavior, 37, 237–253. doi:10.1177/0013916504269644
12.
CarrusG.ScopellitiM.FornaraF.BonnesM.BonaiutoM. (2014). Place attachment, community identification, and pro-environmental engagement. In ManzoL. C.Devine-WrightP. (Eds.), Place attachment. Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 154–164). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
ClarkC. F.KotchenM. J.MooreM. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 237–246. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00105-6
14.
CummingsR. G.BrookshireD. S.SchulzeW. D. (1986). Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent evaluation method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
15.
DeCremerD.Van VugtM. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871–893. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992
16.
Devine-WrightP.ClaytonS. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Place, identity and environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 267–270. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(10)00078-2
17.
FischhoffB. (1991). Value elicitation: Is there anything in there?American Psychologist, 46, 835–847. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835
18.
FleischmanJ. A. (1988). The effects of decision framing and others’ behavior on cooperation in a social dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32, 162–180. doi:10.1177/0022002788032001008
19.
FornaraF.CarrusG.PassafaroP.BonnesM. (2011). Distinguishing the sources of normative influence on pro-environmental behaviours: The role of local norms in household waste recycling. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 623–635. doi:10.1177/1368430211408149
20.
FornaraF.PattitoniP.MuraM.StrazzeraE. (2016). Predicting intention to improve household energy efficiency: The role of value-belief-norm theory, normative and informational influence, and specific attitude. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.001
21.
GreenD. P.KahnemanD.KunreuterH. (1994). How the scope and method of public founding affect willingness to pay for public goods. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 49–67. doi:10.1086/269407
22.
GuagnanoG.SternP. C.DietzT. (1994). Willingness to pay for public goods: A test of the contribution model. Psychological Science, 5, 411–415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00295.x
23.
GuagnanoG. A. (2001). Altruism and market-like behavior: An analysis of willingness to pay for recycled paper products. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 22(4), 425–438. doi:10.1023/A:1006753823611
24.
HacklF.PrucknerG. J. (2005). Warm glow, free-riding and vehicle neutrality in a health-related contingent valuation study. Health Economics, 14, 293–306. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1050
25.
HernándezB.MartínA.RuizC.HidalgoM. C. (2010). The role of place identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 281–288. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.009
26.
HoehnJ.RandallA. (1987). A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics Management, 14, 226–247. doi:10.1016/0095-0696(87)90018-0
27.
KahnemanD. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice. Mapping Bounded Rationality.American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.
28.
KahnemanD.RitovI.JacowitzK. E.GrantP. (1993). Stated willingness to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective. Psychological Science, 4, 310–315. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00570.x
29.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
30.
KorpelaK. M.YlénM.TyrvaainenL.SilvennoinenH. (2009). Stability of self-reported favourite places and place attachment over a 10-month period. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 95–100. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.008
31.
KramerR. M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 191–228.
32.
KristensenH.GarlingT. (1997). The effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation process and outcome. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 85–94. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2713
33.
LewickaM. (2010). What makes neighbourhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 35–51. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004
34.
ManzoL.Devine-WrightP. (Eds.). (2014). Place attachment. Advances in theory, methods and applications. London: Routledge.
35.
NenciA. M.CarrusG.CaddeoP.MeloniA. (2008). Group processes in food choices: The role of ethnic identity and perceived ethnic norms upon intentions to purchase ethnical food products. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 505–511. doi:10.1002/casp.v18:5
36.
OlsenJ. A.DonaldsonC.PereiraJ. (2004). The insensitivity of ‘willingness-to-pay’ to the size of the good: New evidence for health care. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 445–460. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00029-1
37.
PayneJ. W.SchkadeD. A.DesvougesW. (2000). Valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 21, 95–115. doi:10.1023/A:1026573527618
38.
PetersE.SlovicP.GregoryR. (2003). The role of affect in the WTA/WTP disparity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 309–330. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
39.
ProshanskyH. M. (1978). The city and self identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147–169. doi:10.1177/0013916578102002
40.
RitovI.KahnemanD. (1997). How people value the environment: Attitudes versus economic values. In BazermanM. H.MessickD. M.TenbrunselA. E.Wade-BenzoniK. A. (Eds.), Environment, ethics, and behavior: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation (pp. 33–51). San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press/Jossey-Bass.
41.
RosenbergM. J.HovlandC. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective and behavioural components of attitudes. In HovlandC. I.RosenbergM. J. (Eds.), Attitude, organization and change (pp. 1–14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
SáezC. A.Calatrava RequenaJ. (2007). Reconciling sustainability and discounting in Cost–Benefit Analysis: A methodological proposal. Ecological Economics, 60, 712–725. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.002
43.
SaymanS.ÖncülerA. (2005). Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 289–312. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2004.07.002
44.
SeipK.StrandJ. (1992). Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment. Environmental Resource Economics, 2, 91–106. doi:10.1007/BF00324691
45.
SongZ.OuyangZ.XuW. (2012). The role of fairness norms the household-based natural forest conservation: The case of Wolong, China. Ecological Economics, 84, 164–171. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.006
46.
StaatsH. (2004). Proenvironmental attitudes and behavioural change. In SpielbergerC. D. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 127–135). Oxford: Elsevier.
47.
StedmanR. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34, 561–581. doi:10.1177/0013916502034005001
48.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
49.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683
50.
Twigger-RossC.BonaiutoM.BreakwellG. (2003). Identity theories and environmental psychology. In BonnesM.LeeT.BonaiutoM. (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp. 203–233). Aldershot: Ashgate.
51.
UzzellD.PolE.BadenasD. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability. Environment and Behavior, 34, 26–53. doi:10.1177/0013916502034001003
52.
Van VugtM. (2002). Central, individual or collective action? Social dilemma strategies for natural resources management. American Behaviorial Scientist, 45, 783–800. doi:10.1177/0002764202045005004
53.
WhiteM. P.PahlS.AshbullbyK.HerbertS.DepledgeM. H. (2013). Feelings of restoration from recent nature visits. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 40–51. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.04.002
54.
WhiteM. P.SmithA.PahlS.HumphryesK.SnellingD.DepledgeM. H. (2010). Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 482–493. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004
