Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm

References

• Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1977. “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research.” Psychological Bulletin 84: 888–918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldrich, G.A., K.M. Grimsrud, J.A. Thacher, and M.J. Kotchen. 2006. “Relating Environmental Attitudes and Contingent Values: How Robust Are Methods for Identifying Preference Heterogeneity?” Environmental and Resource Economics 37: 757–775.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amburgey, J.W., and D.B. Thoman. 2011. “Dimensionality of the New Ecological Paradigm: Issues of Factor Structure and Measurement.” Environment and Behavior 44: 235–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrow, K., R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. 1–66, Book in Federal Register. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Bahamonde-Birke, F.J., U. Kunert, H. Link, and J.d.D. Ortúzar. 2015. About Attitudes and Perceptions: Finding the Proper Way to Consider Latent Variables in Discrete Choice Models. New York: Transportation, Springer Science+Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Bahamonde-Birke, F.J., and J.d.D. Ortúzar. 2013. “Is Sequential Estimation A Suitable Second Best for the Estimation of Hybrid Choice Models?”. Paper prepared for the presentation at the 93th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Barro, S.C., M.J. Manfredo, T.C. Brown, and G.L. Peterson. 1996. “Examination of the Predictive Validity of CVM Using an Attitude-Behavior Framework.” Society & Natural Resources 9: 111–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartczak, A. 2015. “The Role of Social and Environmental Attitudes in Non-Market Valuation.” Forest Policy and Economics 50:357–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva, M., A. Joan Walker, T. Bernardino, D.A. Gopinath, T. Morikawa, and A. Polydoropoulou. 1999. Integration of Choice and Latent Variable Models [Working Paper], 1–39. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva, M., D. McFadden, T. Gärling, D. Gopinath, J. Walker, D. Bolduc, A. Börsch-Supan, P. Delquié, O. Larichev, T. Morikawa, et al. 1999. “Extended Framework for Modeling Choice Behavior.” Marketing Letters 10: 187–203.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva, M., D. McFadden, K. Train, J.L. Walker, C. Bhat, M. Bierlaire, D. Bolduc, A. Boersch-Supan, D. Brownstone, D. Bunch, et al. 2002. “Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges.” Marketing Letters 13: 163–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D., S.E. Vedel, B.J. Thorsen, and J.B. Jacobsen. 2013. “Heterogeneity in the WTP for Recreational Access: Distributional Aspects.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57: 1200–1219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, A.S., and K.S. Fielding. 2013. “Environmental Attitudes as WTP Predictors: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species.” Ecological Economics 89:24–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chorus, C.G., and M. Kroesen. 2014. “On the (im-)possibility of Deriving Transport Policy Implications from Hybrid Choice Models.” Transport Policy 36: 217–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly, A., S. Hess, B. Patruni, D. Potoglou, and C. Rohr. 2012. “Using Ordered Attitudinal Indicators in a Latent Variable Choice Model: A Study of the Impact of Security on Rail Travel Behaviour.” Transportation 39: 267–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R.E. 2008. “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use.” The Journal of Environmental Education 40 (1): 3–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R.E., and K.D. Van Liere. 1978. “The New Ecological Paradigm: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.” Journal of Environmental Education 9: 10–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R.E., K.D. Van Liere, A.G. Mertig, and R.E. Jones. 2000. “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues 56: 425–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gliem, J.A., and R.R. Gliem. 2003. “Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales.” Presented at the Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, October 8–10.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, W.H. 2012. “NLOGIT Version 5, Reference Guide, 667.” http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wgreene/DiscreteChoice/Software/NLOGIT5Referencel.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Grendstad, G. 1999. “The New Ecological Paradigm Scale: Examination and Scale Analysis.” Environmental Politics 8: 194–205.
   Google Scholar
• Hawcroft, L.J., and T.L. Milfont. 2010. “The Use (and abuse) of The New Environmental Paradigm Scale Over the Last 30 years: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 143–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heberlein, T.A., and R.C. Bishop. 1986. “Assessing the Validity of Contingent Valuation: Three Field Experiments.” The Science of the Total Environment 56:99–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, S., and N. Beharry-Borg. 2011. “Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago.” Environmental and Resource Economics 52:109–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoyos, D. 2010. “The State of the Art of Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments.” Ecological Economics 69:1595–1603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoyos, D., P. Mariel, and S. Hess. 2012. “Environmental Value Orientations in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Latent Variables Approach.” http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.853.9865&rep=rep1&type=pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hoyos, D., P. Mariel, and S. Hess. 2015. “Incorporating Environmental Attitudes in Discrete Choice Models: An Exploration of the Utility of the Awareness of Consequences Scale.” Science of the Total Environment 505: 1100–1111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R.J., K.J. Boyle, W. Adamowicz, J. Bennett, R. Brouwer, T.A. Cameron, W.M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, M. Ryan, R. Scarpa, et al. 2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4: 319–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotchen, M.J., and S.D. Reiling. 2000. “Environmental Attitudes, Motivations, and Contingent Valuation of Nonuse Values: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species.” Ecological Economics 32: 93–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalonde, R., and E.L. Jackson. 2002. “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: Has It Outlived Its Usefulness?” Journal of Environmental Education 33: 28–36.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, R.L., and E.E. Langenau. 1979. “Attitudes Towards Clearcutting and Their Relationships to the Patterning and Diversity of Forest Recreation Activities.” Forest Science 25: 317–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere, J., K. Train, M. Ben-Akiva, C. Bhat, D. Brownstone, T.A. Cameron, R.T. Carson, J.R. Deshazo, D. Fiebig, W. Greene, et al. 2005. “Recent Progress on Endogeneity in Choice Modeling.” Marketing Letters 16: 255–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics IV, edited by P. Zarembka, 105–142. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. 2001. “Economic Choices.” The American Economic Review 91: 351–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyerhoff, J. 2006. “Stated Willingness to Pay as Hypothetical Behaviour: Can Attitudes Tell Us More?” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49:209–226.
   Google Scholar
• Milon, J.W., and D. Scrogin. 2006. “Latent Preferences and Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Restoration.” Ecological Economics 56: 162–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Notaro, S., G. Grilli, and D. Campbell. 2017. “The Role of Cognitions Towards Wildlife in Valuing the Protection of Endangered Species.” Paper presented at the 23rd annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Athens, Greece.
   Google Scholar
• Ojea, E., and M.L. Loureiro. 2007. “Altruistic, Egoistic and Biospheric Values in Willingness To Pay (WTP) for Wildlife.” Ecological Economics 63: 807–814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spash, C.L. 2006. “Non-Economic Motivation for Contingent Values: Rights and Attitudinal Beliefs in the Willingness to Pay for Environmental Improvements.” Land Economics 82: 602–622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokols, D. 1990. “Instrumental and Spiritual Views of People-Environment Relations.” American Psychologist 45: 641–646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarrant, M.A., and G.T. Green. 2009. “Outdoor Recreation and the Predictive Validity of Environmental Attitudes.” Leisure Sciences 21: 17–30.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, S.C.G., and M.A. Barton. 1994. “Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes towards the Environment.” Journal of Economic Psychology 14: 149–157.
   Google Scholar
• Vij, A., and J.L. Walker. 2016. “How, When and Why Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Models are Latently Useful.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 90: 192–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, J., and M. Ben-Akiva. 2002. “Generalized Random Utility Model.” Mathematical Social Sciences 43: 303–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar