Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology

By C. Spash, K. Urama, R. Burton, W. Kenyon, P. Shannon, G. Hill. 2009

292 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1137e7524f86d5b1c2d5d9c8e3730129567b3de6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Managing private and public adaptation to climate change (2012, background): “willing to pay for environmental goods and services even though they might never benefit directly from their existence (Spash et al., 2009).”
Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method (2015, background): “However, the CVM has been criticized as methodologically flawed (Gatzweiler, 2014; Lo and Spash, 2013; Spash, 2008; Spash et al., 2009; Whitehead, 2014).”
An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies (2012, background): “The second school of thought argues that there are more fundamental epistemological issues with valuation, including the fact that valuation tends not to account for non-economical considerations, social or plural values, and rights and procedural fairness (O'Neill, 2007; Sagoff, 1998; Spash et al.,”
The diffusion of microgeneration technologies – assessing the influence of perceived product characteristics on home owners' willingness to pay (2011, background): “For example, studies evaluating WTP for wildlife (e.g. Ojea and Loureiro, 2007) or biodiversity (e.g. Spash et al., 2008) have challenged the rational choice assumption and shown that consumers’ environmental and ethical beliefs have a positive influence on their WTP. Kimenju and De Groote (2008)…”
Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence (2015, background): “…instance, the potential of survey measures of non-anthropocentric motives for biodiversity conservation (e.g. Spash, 2000; Butler and Acott, 2007; Spash et al., 2009; Martín-Lopez et al., 2008), psychological scales of environmental values and attitudes (e.g. Gagnon Thompson and Barton, 1994; de…”
Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services (2016, methodology): “…contextual values, but a wide range of different value expressions based on TVs, including rights-, duty- and virtue-based judgements (e.g. Keat, 1997; Clark, Burgess and Harrison, 2000; O'Neill, Holland and Light, 2008; Spash et al. 2009; Liebe et al. 2011; Wegner and Pascual, 2011; Kenter, 2016).”
What are shared and social values of ecosystems (2015, background): “Asking people for altruistic, bequest, or existence values is, by definition, a moral question, which is unlikely to receive a response in terms of measure that reflects welfare alone (hence the debate about whether statedWTP ismore of an indicator of attitudes than of welfare; see Kahneman et al., ”
How Much is that Ecosystem in the Window? The One with the Bio-diverse Trail (2008, background): “In particular respondents call upon non-economic motives (Spash, 2006) and reason about their actions in ways outside economic understanding of psychology e.g. involving norms, attitudes and personal perceptions of control (Spash et al., 2008).”
The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-Analysis (2014, unknown): “Social orms have been shown to predict WTP in some environmenal contexts (Spash et al. 2009), but not consistently (Carlsson, arcia, and Löfgren 2010).”
Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services (2016, background): “As discussed in Section 2, in economic valuation there has been debate around whether WTP in stated preference methods should be seen as an expression of (imprecise) welfare, or attitudes and charitable contributions (Kahneman et al., 1999; Ryan and Spash, 2011; Spash et al., 2009).”
The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services : integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling (2016, methodology): “…various types of beliefs and norms (Dietz et al., 2005; Raymond and Kenter, 2016), which may in turn underpin contextual values and value indicators such as WTP. Psychological models have considerable potential for explaining monetary values (López-Mosquera and Sánchez, 2012; Spash et al., 2009).”
Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search of a Democratic and Value Plural Approach to Environmental Policy (2013, background): “…of environmental valuation as inadequate opportunities for expressing values and inappropriate attention to non-economic considerations, including social norms, rights and procedural fairness (Vatn and Bromley, 1994; Clark et al., 2000; Jorgensen et al., 2001; O’Neill, 2007; Spash et al., 2009).”