Non-Economic Motivation for Contingent Values: Rights and Attitudinal Beliefs in the Willingness To Pay for Environmental Improvements

By C. Spash. Land Economics, 2006

182 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e72f79b2d53806f112376a53cd355fff9e73f4a1

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 Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

In Marketing

Citations in the corpus

Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method (2015, methodology): “and, therefore, protest zero bids are conventionally excluded from the estimation of aggregate WTP and subsequent cost-benefit analysis (Spash, 2006; 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, background): “…are often expressive of transcendental values (Chan et al., 2012a; Daniel et al., 2012; Fish et al., 2016; Niemeyer, 2004; Raymond and Kenter, 2016; Spash, 2006; Spash et al., 2009), it makes sense that valuation processes should aim to establish shared values in the sense of group-deliberated…”
Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change (2007, background): “Thus, measures of motivation such as attitudes can be seen as important to understanding the outcomes of both stated preferencemethods (Spash, 2006) and small group deliberation (Niemeyer, 2005).”
Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique (2011, background): “individuals are unable and often refuse to measure them along the scale of money (Sagoff, 1988; Spash, 2006; O’Neill et al., 2008).”
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).”
Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology (2009, methodology): “Empirical work directly addressing the issue has found that a significant proportion of survey respondents treat the environment in a manner which is inconsistent with economic theory (Spash and Hanley, 1995; Spash, 2000a, 2006).”
The Brave New World of Carbon Trading (2009, background): “This is because damages involve issues, such as loss of life, which have proven highly contentious when monetised (Spash 2002: 188–91), and refusals to trade off aspects of the environment for money, for example as evident in contingent valuation studies (Spash 2000a, 2006).”
Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services (2016, background): “…(e.g. Ajzen, 2004), mostly for validity testing purposes, but there have been few studies that explicitly consider TVs and how they relate to contextual values and WTP as a value indicator (López-Mosquera and Sánchez, 2012; Spash, 2006; Spash et al. 2009; Kenter et al. 2011; 2016a this issue).”
Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions (2016, background): “Debate and empirical research on the motivations behind WTP in stated preference approaches has suggested that WTP is often not reflective of exchange values, but rather should be seen as a charitable contribution (Kahneman and Ritov, 1994; Ryan and Spash, 2011; Spash, 2006).”
Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool (2012, background): “are generally opposed to the framings adopted in neoclassical monetary valuation as evidenced by their low response rates in CVM studies (Ojea and Loureiro, 2007; Spash, 2006).”
Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. (2014, background): “…measures people’s attitudes and preferences Kahneman and Ritov, 1999) and that its results are partially motiated by non-economic reasons such as people’s moral issues or ndividuals’ previous experiences (Kahneman and Knetsch, 1992; artín-López et al., 2007b; Spash, 2006; Tisdell et al., 2008).”
Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water-scarce regions: Combining economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis and discounting (2010, background): “Protest responses could indicate an unwillingness to place a price on environmental or social (employment) attributes, and thus an unwillingness to engage in trade-offs involving these attributes and the monetary attribute (Spash and Hanley 1995; Spash 2006).”
Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search of a Democratic and Value Plural Approach to Environmental Policy (2013, background): “Thus, for example, some are keen to deny the validity of non-utilitarian responses, which are commonly found in conventional CVM studies (Spash, 2000a, 2006, 2008b).”
Integrating Ecology and Economics in the Study of Ecosystem Services: Some Lessons Learned (2009, background): “Even with agreement on an anthropocentric approach to value, the notion of defining values in terms of consequences or contributions to human welfare, rather than rights or moral obligations, is not universally accepted (Anderson 1993; Spash 1997, 2006).”
Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives (2006, background): “That standard values are designated fails to prevent considerable controversy over the use of both discounting and statistical life calculations (as discussed in Chapters 7 and 8 of Spash, 2002).”