Attitudes Towards Paying for Environmental Protection in the Baltic Sea Region

  • Sirje Pädam
  • Ranjula Bali SwainEmail author


This chapter compares public attitudes to environmental protection in Estonia with those in neighbouring Baltic states. Data from the Estonian Environmental Survey (The Chair of Environmental Economics. Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, 2010) and ISSP Environment III are compared and analysed using an ordered logit. Support for environmental protection is measured in the form of willingness of individuals to make financial sacrifices through higher prices and higher taxes or accepting a cut in their standard of living, in order to protect the environment. Results show that the demand for the protection of the environment tends to increase with income. There are some differences between public attitudes in terms of willingness to accept cuts in the standard of living and willingness to pay higher taxes and prices. Higher education is another determinant of support for environmental protection, particularly in Estonia.


Environmental protection Public attitudes Estonia 


  1. Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Czajkowski, M., Hasler, B., Hasselstrom, L., Huhtala, A., et al. (2014). Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(3), 278–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaisty, P., & Whitefield, S. (2015). Attitudes towards the environment: Are Post-Communist societies (still) different? Environmental Politics, 24(4), 598–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Czajkowski, M., Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Budzinski, W., Hasler, B., Hasselström, L., et al. (2015). Valuing the commons: An international study on the recreational benefits of the Baltic Sea. Journal of Environmental Management, 156, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Estonian Environmental Survey. (2010). The Chair of Environmental Economics. Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn. Data file 07.07.2010.Google Scholar
  5. Flores, N. E., & Carson, R. T. (1997). The relationship between the income elasticities of demand and willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franzen, A., & Vogl, D. (2012). Acquiescence and the willingness to pay for environmental protection: A comparison of the ISSP, WVS and EVS. Social Science Quarterly, 94(3), 637–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelissen, J. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior, 39(3), 392–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  10. Huhtala, A. (2009). The economics of the state of the Baltic Sea: Pre-study assessing the feasibility of a cost-benefit analysis of protecting the Baltic Sea ecosystem, Sektoritutkimuksen neuvottelukunta, Kestävä kehitys 2-2009.Google Scholar
  11. Hökby, S., & Söderqvist, T. (2003). Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environmental and Resource Economics, 26(3), 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IMF. (2015). Table: Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP, from the World Economic Outlook Database October 2015.Google Scholar
  13. ISSP Research Group. (2012). International Social Survey Programme: Environment III—ISSP 2010. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5500 Data file Version 2.0.0. doi: 10.4232/1.11418.
  14. Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
  15. Ivanova, G., & Tranter, B. (2008). Paying for environmental protection in a cross-national perspective. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Naturvårdsverket. (2005). Kvalitetskriterier för ekonomiska miljövärderingsstudier. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverkets rapport.Google Scholar
  17. Pädam, S., & Ehrlich, Ü. (2011). Paying for environmental protection in Estonia in international comparison. In J. Sepp & D. Frear (Eds.), The economy and economics after crisis (pp. 197–209). Berlin: Berliner Wissenchafts-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Pädam, S., Ehrlich, Ü., & Tenno, K. (2010). The impact of EU cohesion policy on sustainability of the environmental sector in the Baltic states. Baltic Journal of Economics, 10(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pouta, E. (2003). Attitude-behavior framework in contingent valuation of forest conservation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Helsinki: Department of Forest Economics Publication 12, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  20. Torgler, B., & Garcia-Valinas, M. (2007). The determinants of individuals’ attitudes towards preventing environmental damage. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 536–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Turner, K., Georgioua, S., Gren, I.-M., Wulff, F., Barrett, S., Söderqvist, T., et al. (1999). Managing nutrient fluxes and pollution in the Baltic: An interdisciplinary simulation study. Ecological Economics, 30(2), 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Stockholm School of Economics and Södertörn UniversityHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations