4.2 Article

'What if I feel it is mine?' - The impact of psychological ownership on public participation in China's transboundary watershed eco-compensation

期刊

WATER POLICY
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 700-717

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wp.2021.230

关键词

China; Double hurdle model; Eco-compensation; Psychological ownership; Public participation; Transboundary watershed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study clarifies the impact of psychological ownership on public participation in transboundary eco-compensation, highlighting the importance of effective public participation in transforming compensation mechanisms. Results show that public participation is influenced by individuals' perception of their own abilities, responsibilities, values, and self-governance abilities. The long-standing 'government-led environmental governance' mode in China has created a significant government dependence psychology among the public.
Clarifying the impact of psychological ownership on public participation in transboundary eco-compensation will contribute to compensation transforming from the current government-led economic incentive mode to the normative guidance of effective public participation, which is of great significance to transboundary management of water resources. From the perspective of social psychology, this paper uses a double hurdle model, empirically analyzes the impact of psychological ownership on public participation, and explores the internal laws and driving mechanisms of behavior. Results show the willingness to participate mainly depends on the public's judgment of self-ability and their own responsibility and values, while the degree of participation depends on the judgment and grasp of self-governance ability. The more they agree protecting the environment is the responsibility and obligation of citizens, the lower their willingness to pay. China's long-term 'government-led environmental governance' mode has led to the formation of a serious government dependence psychology among the public.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据