Socio-economic correlates of stated willingness to change habits for natural resource protection in Albania
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.17(4).2026.06
-
Article InfoVolume 17 2026, Issue #4, pp. 77–91
- 6 Views
-
0 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Natural resource protection is vital for sustainable development in Albania, where land, water, forests, and biodiversity support rural livelihoods, agriculture, tourism, and local welfare. The purpose of this study is to analyze socio-demographic and economic correlates of individuals' stated willingness to change habits for natural resource protection in Albania. Primary data were collected through a structured and anonymous questionnaire completed by 250 voluntary respondents between December 2025 and February 2026. An audit of the archived raw dataset against the questionnaire showed that Item 15 contained three response categories: Yes, Not sure, and No. For the Binary Logit analysis, an affirmative response was coded WTC = 1, whereas Not sure and No were coded WTC = 0; 77.2% of respondents gave an affirmative response. Age, education, income, and information were re-specified categorically, sparse adjacent categories were combined where necessary to avoid complete separation, and robust standard errors were used. The re-estimated model is jointly significant (LR = 34.76, p < 0.001; McFadden R2 = 0.129) and shows acceptable calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.449). Frequency of natural-resource use is positively associated with willingness to contribute (p < 0.001). Income categories are jointly associated with willingness to contribute (p = 0.023), but the pattern is not monotonic; gender, age, education, and information are not jointly significant. Probit and nonlinear-age sensitivity checks do not restore the previously reported negative age or information associations. The findings are interpreted as exploratory associations with stated pro-environmental intention, not as monetary willingness to pay or causal relationships.
Acknowledgment
The authors express their gratitude to all respondents who voluntarily participated in the survey and provided the primary data used in this study.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)C25, Q20, Q56
-
References45
-
Tables9
-
Figures3
-
- Figure 1. Respondents’ self-reported information about natural resource protection
- Figure 2. Perceived impact of daily activities on natural resources
- Figure 3. Raw responses to stated willingness to change habits for natural resource protection
-
- Table 1. Audited response options and analytical coding
- Table 2. Respondent profile in the survey sample
- Table 3. Descriptive statistics
- Table 4. Binary logit model
- Table 5. Model statistics
- Table 6. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test
- Table 7. Correlation matrix
- Table 8. Multicollinearity diagnostics for the re-specified model
- Table A1. Questionnaire items
-
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
- Amer, E. A. A. A., Meyad, E. M. A., Meyad, A. M., & Mohsin, A. K. M. (2024). The impact of natural resources on environmental degradation: A review of ecological footprint and CO2 emissions as indicators. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, Article 1368125.
- Appio, F., Bazgour, T., Platania, F., & Toscano Hernandez, C. (2025). The green premium: How environmental consciousness elevates crowdfunding success. Finance Research Letters, 74, Article 106743.
- Armenteras, D., González-Delgado, T. M., González-Trujillo, J. D., & Meza-Elizalde, M. C. (2023). Local stakeholder perceptions of forest degradation: Keys to sustainable tropical forest management. Ambio, 52(4), 733-742.
- Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601-4614.
- Bakry, W., Mallik, G., Nghiem, X.-H., Sinha, A., & Vo, X. V. (2023). Is green finance really “green”? Examining the long-run relationship between green finance, renewable energy and environmental performance in developing countries. Renewable Energy, 208, 341-355.
- Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25.
- Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., & Loomes, G. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Edward Elgar.
- Benyei, P., Calvet-Mir, L., Reyes-García, V., & Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2022). Indigenous and local knowledge’s role in social movement’s struggles against threats to community-based natural resource management systems: Insights from a qualitative meta-analysis. International Journal of the Commons, 16(1), 263-277.
- Brodrechtova, Y., Majlingová, A., & Sedmák, R. (2024). Stakeholders’ participation in decreasing wildfire risk in the context of natural resource management in the Podpoľanie region of Slovakia. Annals of Forest Science, 81, Article 25.
- Brown, M., Schroder, W., & Murtha, T. (2022). Are threats the connection? Linking cultural and natural resource conservation. Conservation and Society, 20(4), 313-324.
- Carson, R. T. (2000). Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science & Technology, 34(8), 1413-1418.
- Chapin, F. S. III, Kofinas, G. P., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2009). Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer.
- Doli, A., Bamwesigye, D., Hlaváčková, P., Fialová, J., Kupec, P., & Asamoah, O. (2021). Forest park visitors opinions and willingness to pay for sustainable development of the Germia Forest and Recreational Park. Sustainability, 13(6), Article 3160.
- Doli, A., Doli, T., Hlavackova, P., & Bamwesigye, D. (2024). Environmental protection and sustainable tourism of cross-border national parks in Kosovo, Montenegro and Albania: Contingent valuation method. In J. Fialová (Ed.), Public recreation and landscape protection – with environment hand in hand! Proceedings of the 15th Conference (pp. 80-85). Mendel University in Brno.
- Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141-157.
- Grazhdani, D. (2015). Contingent valuation of residents’ attitudes and willingness-to-pay for non-point source pollution control: A case study in AL-Prespa, southeastern Albania. Environmental Management, 56(1), 81-93.
- Groven, K., Auestad, I., Moberg, K. R., & Hamre, L. N. (2025). Biodiversity under pressure: In search of sustainable planning strategies. People and Nature, 7(10), 2451-2462.
- Hardman, M., & Samangooei, M. (2025). Cities, climate change and the biodiversity crisis. Climate Interactions, 1(1), Article 2479355.
- Harries, B., Chalmin-Pui, L. S., Gatersleben, B., Griffiths, A., & Ratcliffe, E. (2025). Noticing nature: The role of environmental awareness in promoting well-being. People and Nature, 7(10), 2307-2319.
- Huo, J., & Peng, C. (2023). Depletion of natural resources and environmental quality: Prospects of energy use, energy imports, and economic growth hindrances. Resources Policy, 86, Article 104049.
- Isaac, R., Cumming, G. S., Felipe-Lucia, M. R., & Martín-López, B. (2025). The forest beyond the trees: A network perspective on governing co-production of nature’s contributions to people. Ambio, 54(11), 1835-1851.
- Kapur, R. (2016). Natural resources and environmental issues. Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography, 6(2), Article 196.
- Koju, U., Karki, S., Shrestha, A., Maraseni, T., Gautam, A. P., Cadman, T., Sherpa, A. P., & Lama, S. T. (2023). Local stakeholders’ priorities and perceptions towards forest ecosystem services in the Red panda habitat region of Nepal. Land Use Policy, 129, Article 106657.
- Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
- Lange, F., & Dewitte, S. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 92-100.
- Loomis, J. (2000). Environmental valuation techniques in water resource decision making. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 126(6), 339-344.
- Magidimisha-Chipungu, H. H. (2025). Mitigating and adapting to climate impacts. Climate Interactions, 1(1), Article 2479354.
- Mărgărint, M. C., Niculiță, M., Roder, G., & Tarolli, P. (2021). Risk perception of local stakeholders on natural hazards: Implications for theory and practice. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 21(11), 3251-3283.
- Masao, C. A., Prescott, G. W., Snethlage, M. A., Urbach, D., Torre-Marin Rando, A., Molina-Venegas, R., Mollel, N. P., Hemp, C., Hemp, A., & Fischer, M. (2022). Stakeholder perspectives on nature, people and sustainability at Mount Kilimanjaro. People and Nature, 4(3), 711-729.
- Mason, E., Cornu, S., Froger, C., & Chenu, C. (2025). Scientific indicators and stakeholders’ perceptions on soil threats in France: How do they compare? European Journal of Soil Science, 76(5), Article e70190.
- Megyesi, B., Gholipour, A., Cuomo, F., Canga, E., Tsatsou, A., Zihlmann, V., Junge, R., Milosevic, D., & Pineda-Martos, R. (2024). Perceptions of stakeholders on nature-based solutions in urban planning: A thematic analysis in six European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 96, Article 128344.
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
- Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future.
- Nguyen, C. P., & Nguyen, B. Q. (2025). Do natural threats matter for natural resources rents? Global evidence. Resources Policy, 102, Article 105509.
- Omri, H., Jarraya, B., & Kahia, M. (2025). Green finance for achieving environmental sustainability in G7 countries: Effects and transmission channels. Research in International Business and Finance, 74, Article 102691.
- Perera, D., Abunada, Z., & AlQabany, A. (2024). Coupled human and natural systems: A novel framework for complexity management. Sustainability, 16(22), Article 9661.
- Perman, R., Ma, Y., Common, M., Maddison, D., & McGilvray, J. (2011). Natural resource and environmental economics (4th ed.). Pearson.
- Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science, 302(5652), 1912-1914.
- Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
- Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
- Tietenberg, T., & Lewis, L. (2018). Environmental and natural resource economics (11th ed.). Routledge.
- Whitehead, J. C. (2006). A practitioner’s primer on the contingent valuation method. In A. Alberini & J. R. Kahn (Eds.), Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar.
- Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
- Zhou, Z., Chau, K. Y., Sibghatullah, A., Moslehpour, M., Tien, N. H., & Shukurullaevich, K. N. (2024). The role of green finance, environmental benefits, fintech development, and natural resource management in advancing sustainability. Resources Policy, 92, Article 105013.


