IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i5p1902-d1345943.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Sustainability Concerns and Ecosystem Services: The Role of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale in Understanding Public Opinion

Author

Listed:
  • Stefania Tonin

    (Department of Architecture and Arts, Università Iuav di Venezia, 30135 Venezia, Italy)

  • Diego Benedetto

    (Department of Architecture and Arts, Università Iuav di Venezia, 30135 Venezia, Italy)

Abstract

This study mainly explores people’s environmental attitudes and perceptions and their motivations for protecting and improving ecosystem services in Italy. The environmental perceptions of people were explored through the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale, a tool for gauging environmental consciousness and perceptions, especially in the context of ecological sustainability. Data were collected from a sample of more than 1500 respondents residing in Italy using computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI). The results showed that respondents have a high level of environmental concern for most scale issues. The application of principal component analysis (PCA) to the respondents’ responses revealed the multidimensionality of the NEP scale: anti-anthropocentrism (pro-NEP items), human domination (pro-dominant social paradigm (DSP) items), and limits of nature. The results also showed that socio-demographic characteristics and people’s knowledge and beliefs are associated with a strong concern for nature, which can support ecosystem service conservation. Different cultural backgrounds may place varying emphasis on sustainability, conservation, or economic development.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:1902-:d:1345943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/1902/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/1902/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farjam, Mike & Nikolaychuk, Olexandr & Bravo, Giangiacomo, 2019. "Experimental evidence of an environmental attitude-behavior gap in high-cost situations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Matsiori, Steriani K., 2020. "Application of the New Environmental Paradigm to Greece: A critical case study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 335-344.
    3. Roberts, James A. & Bacon, Donald R., 1997. "Exploring the Subtle Relationships between Environmental Concern and Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 79-89, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Debbrota Mallick & Eric Po Keung Tsang & John Chi-Kin Lee & Chi Chiu Cheang, 2023. "Marine Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes among University Students in Hong Kong: An Application of the Ocean Literacy Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    7. Gwendolyn Aldrich & Kristine Grimsrud & Jennifer Thacher & Matthew Kotchen, 2007. "Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 757-775, August.
    8. George Halkos & Steriani Matsiori, 2018. "Gathering society's opinion of the sustainable management and economic value of the coastal zone," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 701-712, November.
    9. Michelle Man Suet Law & Peter Hills & Billy Chi Hang Hau, 2017. "Engaging Employees in Sustainable Development – a Case Study of Environmental Education and Awareness Training in Hong Kong," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 84-97, January.
    10. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios & Schlegelmilch, Bodo B. & Sinkovics, Rudolf R. & Bohlen, Greg M., 2003. "Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 465-480, June.
    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. 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. Saari, Ulla A. & Damberg, Svenja & Frömbling, Lena & Ringle, Christian M., 2021. "Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-70.
    4. Matsiori, Steriani K., 2020. "Application of the New Environmental Paradigm to Greece: A critical case study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 335-344.
    5. Zohreh Khalili Ardali & Hamid Amirnejad & Soleiman Mohammadi Limaei & Sadegh Salehi, 2024. "Assessment of Recreational Value in a Protected Forest Area Considering the New Environmental Paradigm (Case Study: Helen Forest, Southwestern Iran)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, March.
    6. Husted, Bryan W. & Russo, Michael V. & Meza, Carlos E. Basurto & Tilleman, Suzanne G., 2014. "An exploratory study of environmental attitudes and the willingness to pay for environmental certification in Mexico," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 891-899.
    7. Malin Jonell & Beatrice Crona & Kelsey Brown & Patrik Rönnbäck & Max Troell, 2016. "Eco-Labeled Seafood: Determinants for (Blue) Green Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Carter, Kealy & Jayachandran, Satish & Murdock, Mitchel R., 2021. "Building A Sustainable Shelf: The Role of Firm Sustainability Reputation," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 507-522.
    9. Li, Zhengtao & Hu, Bin, 2018. "Perceived health risk, environmental knowledge, and contingent valuation for improving air quality: New evidence from the Jinchuan mining area in China," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 54-68.
    10. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    11. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Eva M. Murgado-Armenteros & María Gutierrez-Salcedo & Francisco José Torres-Ruiz, 2020. "The Concern about Biodiversity as a Criterion for the Classification of the Sustainable Consumer: A Cross-Cultural Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, April.
    13. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    14. Chirag Malik & Neeraj Singhal, 2017. "Consumer Environmental Attitude and Willingness to Purchase Environmentally Friendly Products: An SEM Approach," Vision, , vol. 21(2), pages 152-161, June.
    15. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & Lyssenko, Nikita, 2011. "Correcting for the endogeneity of pro-environment behavioral choices in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1435-1439, June.
    16. Johan Jansson, 2011. "Consumer eco‐innovation adoption: assessing attitudinal factors and perceived product characteristics," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 192-210, March.
    17. Ward, David O. & Clark, Christopher D. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Yen, Steven T. & Russell, Clifford S., 2011. "Factors influencing willingness-to-pay for the ENERGY STAR® label," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1450-1458, March.
    18. Kalamas, Maria & Cleveland, Mark & Laroche, Michel, 2014. "Pro-environmental behaviors for thee but not for me: Green giants, green Gods, and external environmental locus of control," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 12-22.
    19. Cicatiello, Lorenzo & Ercolano, Salvatore & Gaeta, Giuseppe Lucio & Pinto, Mauro, 2020. "Willingness to pay for environmental protection and the importance of pollutant industries in the regional economy. Evidence from Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    20. Karamcheti BHARGAVI & Gupta MEGHA & Sharma KIRAN, 2021. "How Ecologically Conscious are Millennials? A Study of Young Consumers," Economics and Applied Informatics, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 3, pages 12-21.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:1902-:d:1345943. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.