Public Attitude Toward Investment in Sustainable Cities in Taiwan
The purpose of this study was to investigate public attitude toward investment in sustainable infrastructure in Taiwan. We decomposed the value of sustainability development into three dimensions, namely, environmental, societal, and economic values, and then showed that there were relationships between public attitude toward investment in sustainable cities and these sub-values of sustainability development. To do so, we built scales to measure public attitude toward investment in sustainable infrastructure and these sub-values of sustainability development. We used a questionnaire to collect our data, interviewing 359 undergraduate students in June of 2018. Multiple regression models were then employed for statistical analysis. We first found that, after controlling for the students’ gender and majors, the public attitude toward sustainable cities in Taiwan was correlated with environmental value but only partially related to economic value. Meanwhile, the relationship between the public attitude toward investment in sustainable cities and societal value was trivial. Moreover, we also found that the economic, societal, and environmental values of sustainability development are not mutually exclusive concepts but, rather, are compatible with each other in the overall concept of sustainable city design. We concluded that investment in sustainable cities in Taiwan was regarded by the public as mainly contributing to environmental value. These findings provide a theoretical contribution to the literature of environmental psychology. Furthermore, the conclusions of the study have methodological and practical implications for countries and firms involved in the public infrastructure development of sustainable cities.
KeywordsSustainable infrastructure Public attitude Sustainable cities Environmental psychology
The work was supported by all of the participating science centers and Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology under Grant 106‐2511‐S‐110‐007.
- Bulkeley H (2013) Cities and climate change. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
- Falkena HJ, Moll HC, Noorman KJ (2002) Towards a sustainable city: roles, behaviour and attitudes of citizens, local organisations and the authorities. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 54Google Scholar
- Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199773329.001.0001
- Krause RM, Feiock RC, Hawkins CV (2014) The administrative organization of sustainability within local government. J Public Adm Res Theor 26(1):113–127Google Scholar
- Lau LS, Choong CK, Ng CF (2018) Role of institutional quality on environmental Kuznets curve: a comparative study in developed and developing countries. In: Advances in pacific basin business, economics and finance. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp 223–247Google Scholar
- Levi D, Casswell R, Gonzales U, Lopez A (2010) Attitudes towards sustainable cities: are sustainable cities liable cities? Focus J City Reg Plann Dept 7(7):33–35Google Scholar
- Science for Environment Policy (2018) Indicators for sustainable cities. In-depth Report 12. Produced for the European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy
- Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev:81–97Google Scholar
- Stern PC, Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1995) Values, beliefs, and pro-environmental attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J Appl Soc Psychol 25:1611–1636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2013) Chapter III Towards sustainable cities. In: From world economic and social survey 2013: sustainable development challenges. United Nations, NYGoogle Scholar
- Yen M-F, Wu R, Miranda MJ (2019) A general equilibrium model of bilateral trade with strategic public investment in commercial infrastructure. J Int Trade Econ Dev 28(6):712–731Google Scholar