Exploring public perceptions and support for green infrastructure funding mechanisms: a study of the Oxford–Cambridge Arc, England

Abstract

The uptake of green infrastructure is challenged by a lack of access to financing. Studies have investigated individuals’ economic valuation of green infrastructure but understanding public perceptions of a range of potential funding mechanisms is a fundamental step in developing funding measures. Using data collected from a sample of residents in the Oxford–Cambridge Arc, England, this study addresses a gap in our understanding of public perceptions of green infrastructure funding by investigating support for several funding mechanisms, and the extent to which support is associated with attitudinal, contextual and personal capability variables. Results indicate that respondents prefer the funding of small and large-scale infrastructure to be covered by developers, with most opposition being levelled at those involving additional financial obligations from citizens. Altruistic-biospheric values, pro-environmental behaviour and trust in the government significantly affected support. These findings provide valuable insight to policymakers attempting to introduce sustainable green infrastructure funding streams.

Keywords:

• green infrastructure
• public perceptions
• funding mechanisms

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Monica Giulietti, Maria Nieswand and David Saal for their constructive feedback and suggestions during the development of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Data availability statement

Data underlying this study can be accessed through the Cranfield University repository (CORD) at: https://doi.org/10.17862/cranfield.rd.19890478.

Notes

1 One sector specific mechanism, an increase in water tariff rates, was introduced since the projects were described as SUDS that helped with flood management.

2 For simplicity, we estimated the predicted probability that an individual would be in category 4, or that they would somewhat support the mechanism. We chose level 4 and not level 5 as an indicator of support because the majority of respondents who supported a mechanism only somewhat supported and did not strongly support it.

3 We choose the medium level – 3 – rather than the lowest level, as very few respondents select values below 3 in the survey.

Additional information

Funding

The authors acknowledge funding provided by EPSRC under the UKCRIC Coordination Node (EP/R017727/1).