Valuing campus green space: willingness to pay for nature preservation under institutional growth pressures

Purpose Universities often face trade-offs between campus development and preservation of natural areas. This study aims to estimate how university employees value protecting campus green space and examines how institutional trust and payment acceptance affect observed support for sustainability initiatives. Design/methodology/approach A contingent valuation (CV) survey was administered to faculty, staff and administrators at a public Canadian university. Respondents evaluated a realistic development scenario in which preservation required higher service fees or reduced employment benefits. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) was estimated using models that account for protest participation and zero bids, including a selection-corrected Tobit specification. Findings Observed contributions imply an expected WTP of approximately CAD 149 per employee per year under existing institutional conditions. However, the latent valuation recovered from the selection-corrected Tobit model is approximately CAD 399 per employee per year. The gap between these estimates reflects participation and payment-acceptance frictions rather than weak environmental preferences. Protest responses reflected concerns about fairness and institutional trust. Interpreting the probability-weighted WTP as an annual flow from a long-lived institutional natural asset implies an employee-based asset value of approximately CAD 14.9 million under a 1.4% discount rate and CAD 208.6 million under a near-zero 0.1% discount-rate sensitivity scenario. Research limitations/implications The study examines one university and only employees, limiting generalizability. As a stated-preference survey, responses describe hypothetical rather than actual payments. The payment vehicle (higher parking fees combined with potential benefit reductions) may also have elevated protest responses by emphasizing fairness concerns. Nonetheless, identifying protest behavior shows that acceptance of conservation policies depends strongly on institutional credibility and perceived fairness. Practical implications Campus conservation policies require credible commitments. Support declines when costs are concentrated on employees or viewed as inequitable. Universities should therefore pair preservation plans with transparent governance, and formal protection mechanisms rather than informal sustainability pledges. Engagement of staff and faculty in land-use planning can increase acceptance of preservation initiatives. Social implications University campuses are the role models for local biodiversity and public perceptions of sustainability. The study shows that people support conservation but resist policies viewed as unfair, highlighting the importance of institutional legitimacy. Transparent governance and protection of campus natural areas can strengthen trust and demonstrate how local decisions contribute to broader environmental stewardship. Originality/value The contribution is primarily empirical and institutional rather than a claim of methodological novelty. The study shows that CV within universities measures both environmental preferences and institutional legitimacy. Sustainability outcomes in higher education depend not only on environmental attitudes, but also on governance credibility and perceived fairness of financing mechanisms. Because the survey covers only employees, aggregate values should be interpreted as lower-bound estimates for employee stakeholders rather than as measures of total campus social welfare.