Quantifying preferences for the natural world using monetary and nonmonetary assessments of value
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Quantifying preferences for the natural world using monetary and nonmonetary assessments of value. / Dallimer, Martin; Tinch, Dugald; Hanley, Nick; Irvine, Katherine N.; Rouquette, James R.; Warren, Philip H; Maltby, Lorraine; Gaston, Kevin J.; Armsworth, Paul R.
In: Conservation Biology, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2014, p. 404-413.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Quantifying preferences for the natural world using monetary and nonmonetary assessments of value
AU - Dallimer, Martin
AU - Tinch, Dugald
AU - Hanley, Nick
AU - Irvine, Katherine N.
AU - Rouquette, James R.
AU - Warren, Philip H
AU - Maltby, Lorraine
AU - Gaston, Kevin J.
AU - Armsworth, Paul R.
N1 - © 2013 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the Society for Conservation Biology.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Given that funds for biodiversity conservation are limited, there is a need to understand people's preferences for its different components. To date, such preferences have largely been measured in monetary terms. However, how people value biodiversity may differ from economic theory, and there is little consensus over whether monetary metrics are always appropriate or the degree to which other methods offer alternative and complementary perspectives on value. We used a choice experiment to compare monetary amounts recreational visitors to urban green spaces were willing to pay for biodiversity enhancement (increases in species richness for birds, plants, and aquatic macroinvertebrates) with self-reported psychological gains in well-being derived from visiting the same sites. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were significant and positive, and respondents reported high gains in well-being across 3 axes derived from environmental psychology theories (reflection, attachment, continuity with past). The 2 metrics were broadly congruent. Participants with above-median self-reported well-being scores were willing to pay significantly higher amounts for enhancing species richness than those with below-median scores, regardless of taxon. The socio-economic and demographic background of participants played little role in determining either their well-being or the probability of choosing a paying option within the choice experiment. Site-level environmental characteristics were only somewhat related to WTP, but showed strong associations with self-reported well-being. Both approaches are likely to reflect a combination of the environmental properties of a site and unobserved individual preference heterogeneity for the natural world. Our results suggest that either metric will deliver mutually consistent results in an assessment of environmental preferences, although which approach is preferable depends on why one wishes to measure values for the natural world.
AB - Given that funds for biodiversity conservation are limited, there is a need to understand people's preferences for its different components. To date, such preferences have largely been measured in monetary terms. However, how people value biodiversity may differ from economic theory, and there is little consensus over whether monetary metrics are always appropriate or the degree to which other methods offer alternative and complementary perspectives on value. We used a choice experiment to compare monetary amounts recreational visitors to urban green spaces were willing to pay for biodiversity enhancement (increases in species richness for birds, plants, and aquatic macroinvertebrates) with self-reported psychological gains in well-being derived from visiting the same sites. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were significant and positive, and respondents reported high gains in well-being across 3 axes derived from environmental psychology theories (reflection, attachment, continuity with past). The 2 metrics were broadly congruent. Participants with above-median self-reported well-being scores were willing to pay significantly higher amounts for enhancing species richness than those with below-median scores, regardless of taxon. The socio-economic and demographic background of participants played little role in determining either their well-being or the probability of choosing a paying option within the choice experiment. Site-level environmental characteristics were only somewhat related to WTP, but showed strong associations with self-reported well-being. Both approaches are likely to reflect a combination of the environmental properties of a site and unobserved individual preference heterogeneity for the natural world. Our results suggest that either metric will deliver mutually consistent results in an assessment of environmental preferences, although which approach is preferable depends on why one wishes to measure values for the natural world.
U2 - 10.1111/cobi.12215
DO - 10.1111/cobi.12215
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 24372643
VL - 28
SP - 404
EP - 413
JO - Conservation Biology
JF - Conservation Biology
SN - 0888-8892
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 107160733