The aim of this paper is to understand public preferences for several future scenarios of achieving a healthier, more equitable and sustainable Europe, which differ in the way the society is organized (individualistically vs. collectively) and in the driving sector (public vs. private). To achieve this aim, we conducted a questionnaire survey using representative samples for five European countries in 2018. About three thousand respondents chose among the four scenarios presented within four different contexts (green spaces, active mobility, energy-efficient housing, food consumption) or none of them. A majority of people in the five European countries were ready to accept one of the scenarios. We found significant differences in preferences according to socioeconomic backgrounds and values of respondents. People above 35 years old, those who were less educated, and those in the lowest household income tertile were less supportive of all scenarios. The heterogeneity in preferences associated with differences in socioeconomic backgrounds was larger for the scenario in which society is organized individualistically and driven by the private sector. Smaller distinctions were found in case of the scenario in which society is organized collectively and is driven by the public sector. Departing from social psychological theories, we examine the role of altruistic, biospheric, egoistic, hedonic, and security values. People with stronger biospheric values were more likely to accept scenarios, particularly those which are driven by the public sector and where there is more collective organisation. Those with a more egoistic value orientation were more likely to have higher preferences for scenarios where the private sector had a dominant role. The policy implications, in terms of the selection and framing of policy measures to enhance public support, are discussed.

Basque Centre for Climate Change Biscaya 48004 Pais Vasco Spain

Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production 42107 Wuppertal Germany

Environment Centre Charles University 162 00 Prague Czech Republic

European Centre for Environment and Human Health University of Exeter Medical School Truro TR1 3HD UK

Instituto Universitário de Lisboa CIS IUL 1649 026 Lisboa Portugal

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Staatsen B., van der Vliet N., Kruize H., Hall L., Morris G., Bell R., Stegeman I. INHERIT: Exploring Triple-Win Solutions for Living, Moving and Consuming that Encourage Behavioural Change, Protect the Environment, Promote Health and Health Equity. EuroHealthNet, Brussels. [(accessed on 17 May 2020)];2017 Available online: https://inherit.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/INHERIT-Report-A4-Low-res_s.pd.

The First and Last Mile—The Key to Sustainable Urban Transport. Transport and Environment Report 2019. [(accessed on 14 April 2020)];2019 Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/the-first-and-last-mile.

Mueller N., Rojas-Rueda D., Cole-Hunter T., de Nazelle A., Dons E., Gerike R., Götschi T., Panis L.I., Kahlmeier S., Nieuwenhuijsen M. Health impact assessment of active transportation: A systematic review. Prev. Med. 2015;76:103–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.04.010. PubMed DOI

Oonincx D.G.A.B., de Boer I.J.M. Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source for Humans—A Life Cycle Assessment. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e51145. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051145. PubMed DOI PMC

Garnett T., Mathewson S., Angelides P., Borthwick F. Policies and Actions to Shift Eating Patterns: What Works? A Review of the Evidence of the Effectiveness of Interventions Aimed at Shifting Diets in more Sustainable and Healthy Directions 2015. [(accessed on 16 February 2020)]; Available online: https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/fcrn_chatham_house_0.pdf.

Chel A., Kaushik G. Renewable energy technologies for sustainable development of energy efficient building. Alex. Eng. J. 2018;57:655–669. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2017.02.027. DOI

2030 Climate & Energy Framework. [(accessed on 16 February 2020)]; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en.

Lee A.C.K., Maheswaran R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. J. Public Health. 2011;33:212–222. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdq068. PubMed DOI

WHO Urban Green Spaces and Health A Review of Evidence 2016. [(accessed on 13 May 2020)]; Available online: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/urban-health/publications/2016/urban-green-spaces-and-health-a-review-of-evidence-2016.

United Nations About the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Sustainable Development. [(accessed on 28 March 2020)]; Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

Guillen-Hanson G., Strube R., Xhelili A. INHERIT: Reaching the ‘Triple-Win’, Four Future Scenarios of a Healthier, more Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040. [(accessed on 12 February 2020)];2018 Available online: https://www.scp-centre.org/publications/reaching-the-triple-win/

Steg L., Dreijerink L., Abrahamse W. Why are Energy Policies Acceptable and Effective? Environ. Behav. 2006;38:92–111. doi: 10.1177/0013916505278519. DOI

Grossi F., Strube R., Xhelili A. INHERIT: Citizen Insights for a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040. A Qualitative Analysis in Five Countries. [(accessed on 10 March 2020)];2018 Available online: https://inherit.eu/wp-content/uploads/INHERIT_Focus_Groups_AnalyticalReport_Final.pdf.

Xhelili A., Strube R., Grossi F., Zvěřinová I., Taylor T., Martinez-Juarez P., Quiroga S., Suárez C., Gjorgjev D. A Technological Scenario for a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040: Citizen Perceptions and Policy Implications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:231. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010231. PubMed DOI PMC

Chang K.M., Hess J.J., Balbus J.M., Buonocore J.J., Cleveland D.A., Grabow M.L., Neff R., Saari R.K., Tessum C.W., Wilkinson P., et al. Ancillary health effects of climate mitigation scenarios as drivers of policy uptake: A review of air quality, transportation and diet co-benefits modeling studies. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017;12:113001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa8f7b. PubMed DOI PMC

Quam V.G.M., Rocklöv J., Quam M.B.M., Lucas R.A.I. Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Health Co-Benefits: A Structured Review of Lifestyle-Related Climate Change Mitigation Strategies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2017;14:468. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14050468. PubMed DOI PMC

Söderholm P., Hildingsson R., Johansson B., Khan J., Wilhelmsson F. Governing the transition to low-carbon futures: A critical survey of energy scenarios for 2050. Futures. 2011;43:1105–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2011.07.009. DOI

Spiecker S., Weber C. The future of the European electricity system and the impact of fluctuating renewable energy—A scenario analysis. Energy Policy. 2014;65:185–197. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.032. DOI

Beck U. Climate for Change, or How to Create a Green Modernity? Theory Cult. Soc. 2010;27:254–266. doi: 10.1177/0263276409358729. DOI

European Commission Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment. [(accessed on 15 January 2020)]; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinionmobile/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/surveyKy/2257.

Alberini A., Bigano A., Ščasný M., Zvěřinová I. Preferences for Energy Efficiency vs. Renewables: What Is the Willingness to Pay to Reduce CO2 Emissions? Ecol. Econ. 2018;144:171–185. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.009. DOI

Drews S., van den Bergh J.C.J.M. What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim. Policy. 2016;16:855–876. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240. DOI

Akter S., Bennett J. Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: The case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia. Clim. Chang. 2011;109:417–436. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0034-8. DOI

Metzger M.J., Murray-Rust D., Houtkamp J., Jensen A., La Riviere I., Paterson J.S., Pérez-Soba M., Valluri-Nitsch C. How do Europeans want to live in 2040? Citizen visions and their consequences for European land use. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018;18:789–802. doi: 10.1007/s10113-016-1091-3. DOI

Special Eurobarometer 479: Future of Europe. [(accessed on 19 March 2020)]; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2217_90_2_479_ENG.

Special Eurobarometer 492: Europeans’ Attitudes on EU Energy Policy. [(accessed on 23 February 2020)]; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2238_91_4_492_ENG.

Schwartz S.H. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992;25:1–65. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6. DOI

Stern P.C., Dietz T. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. J. Soc. Issues. 1994;50:65–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x. DOI

Stern P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues. 2000;56:407–424. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175. DOI

De Groot J.I.M., Steg L. Value Orientations and Environmental Beliefs in Five Countries: Validity of an Instrument to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2007;38:318–332. doi: 10.1177/0022022107300278. DOI

Harring N., Jagers S.C., Matti S. Public Support for Pro-Environmental Policy Measures: Examining the Impact of Personal Values and Ideology. Sustainability. 2017;9:679. doi: 10.3390/su9050679. DOI

Steg L., Groot J.I.M. de Environmental Values. [(accessed on 18 January 2020)]; Available online: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199733026-e-5. DOI

Steg L., Perlaviciute G., van der Werff E. Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Front. Psychol. 2015;6:805. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00805. PubMed DOI PMC

Zvěřinová I., Ščasný M., Máca V. Barriers and Potential for Adopting Healthier, More Equitable and Environmentally Friendly Solutions Identified in a Five-Country Survey. [(accessed on 14 February 2020)];2018 Available online: https://inherit.eu/upload/five_country_survey.pdf.

Neuvonen A., Kaskinen T., Leppänen J., Lähteenoja S., Mokka R., Ritola M. Low-carbon futures and sustainable lifestyles: A backcasting scenario approach. Futures. 2014;58:66–76. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.01.004. DOI

Scenario Method. European Foresight Platform (EFP) [(accessed on 17 May 2020)]; Available online: http://www.foresight-platform.eu/community/forlearn/how-to-do-foresight/methods/scenario/

Churchill G.A. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. J. Mark. Res. 1979;16:64–73. doi: 10.1177/002224377901600110. DOI

Kline R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 4th ed. Guilford Publications; New York, NY, USA: 2016.

Mueller R.O., Hancock G.R. Factor Analysis and Latent Structure, Confirmatory. In: Smelser N.J., Baltes P.B., editors. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Pergamon; Oxford, UK: 2001. pp. 5239–5244.

Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012;48:1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02. DOI

Feldmann C., Hamm U. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Q. Prefer. 2015;40:152–164. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.014. DOI

Carroll B.E., Fahy F. Locating the locale of local food: The importance of context, space and social relations. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2015;30:563–576. doi: 10.1017/S1742170514000404. DOI

Winter M. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. J. Rural Stud. 2003;19:23–32. doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00053-0. DOI

Stride V., Cranney L., Scott A., Hua M. Outdoor gyms and older adults—Acceptability, enablers and barriers: a survey of park users. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2017;28:243–246. doi: 10.1071/HE16075. PubMed DOI

Lee J.L.C., Lo T.L.T., Ho R.T.H. Understanding Outdoor Gyms in Public Open Spaces: A Systematic Review and Integrative Synthesis of Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2018;15:590. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15040590. PubMed DOI PMC

Cohen D.A., Marsh T., Williamson S., Golinelli D., McKenzie T.L. Impact and cost-effectiveness of family Fitness Zones: A natural experiment in urban public parks. Health Place. 2012;18:39–45. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.09.008. PubMed DOI PMC

European Commission Expectations and Concerns from a Connected and Automated Mobility. [(accessed on 13 May 2020)]; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2231.

Brown V., Moodie M., Cobiac L., Mantilla Herrera A.M., Carter R. Obesity-related health impacts of fuel excise taxation—An evidence review and cost-effectiveness study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:359. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4271-2. PubMed DOI PMC

Brännlund R., Nordström J. Carbon tax simulations using a household demand model. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2004;48:211–233. doi: 10.1016/S0014-2921(02)00263-5. DOI

Kallbekken S., Sælen H. Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns. Energy Policy. 2011;39:2966–2973. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.006. DOI

Giskes K., Avendaňo M., Brug J., Kunst A.E. A systematic review of studies on socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes associated with weight gain and overweight/obesity conducted among European adults. Obes. Rev. 2010;11:413–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00658.x. PubMed DOI

De Ridder D., Kroese F., Evers C., Adriaanse M., Gillebaart M. Healthy diet: Health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions. Psychol. Health. 2017;32:907–941. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2017.1316849. PubMed DOI

Lutz C. Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. 2019;1:141–148. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.140. DOI

Rohan M.J. A Rose by Any Name? The Values Construct. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2000;4:255–277. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0403_4. DOI

Rokeach M. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press; New York, NY, USA: 1973.

Schultz P.W., Zelezny L. Reframing Environmental Messages to be Congruent with American Values. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2003;10:126–136.

De Dominicis S., Schultz P.W., Bonaiuto M. Protecting the Environment for Self-interested Reasons: Altruism Is Not the Only Pathway to Sustainability. Front. Psychol. 2017;8:1065. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01065. PubMed DOI PMC

Krosnick J.A., MacInnis B. Does the American Public Support Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Daedalus. 2013;142:26–39. doi: 10.1162/DAED_a_00183. DOI

Iacovidou E., Wehrmeyer W. Making sense of the future: Visions and transition pathways of laypeople and professionals from six EU countries. Glob. Bioeth. 2014;25:211–225. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2014.957010. DOI

Diepeveen S., Ling T., Suhrcke M., Roland M., Marteau T.M. Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:756. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-756. PubMed DOI PMC

Steg L. Values, Norms, and Intrinsic Motivation to Act Proenvironmentally. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016;41:277–292. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085947. DOI

Collado S., Staats H., Corraliza J.A. Experiencing nature in children’s summer camps: Affective, cognitive and behavioural consequences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013;33:37–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.002. DOI

Mayer F.S., Frantz C.M., Bruehlman-Senecal E., Dolliver K. Why Is Nature Beneficial?: The Role of Connectedness to Nature. Environ. Behav. 2008;41:607–643. doi: 10.1177/0013916508319745. DOI

Tam K.-P., Lee S.-L., Chao M.M. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013;49:514–521. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001. DOI

Bardi A., Goodwin R. The Dual Route to Value Change: Individual Processes and Cultural Moderators. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2011;42:271–287. doi: 10.1177/0022022110396916. DOI

Jackson T. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change. [(accessed on 13 April 2020)];Sustain. Dev. Res. Netw. 2005 29:30. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.337.433&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Groot J.I.M.D., Steg L. Mean or green: which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conserv. Lett. 2009;2:61–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00048.x. DOI

Encouraging and Enabling Lifestyles and Behaviours to Simultaneously Promote Environmental Sustainability, Health and Equity: Key Policy Messages from INHERIT