IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v219y2024ics0921800924000326.html

Investing in Nature: Assessing the Effects of Monetary and Non-Monetary Valuations on Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Markanday, Ambika
  • Lliso, Bosco
  • Sorman, Alevgul H.

Abstract

There is widespread debate over how best to consider and integrate nature's diverse value dimensions into decision-making over natural resources. Following an experimental approach, this study tests the impact of a monetary versus non-monetary framing on conservation preferences relating to (hypothetical) mountain and wetland sites in the Basque Country (Spain). The experiment also examines whether these framings evoke different levels of cognitive and experiential reasoning. The experiment was conducted online and had 305 participants from the Basque Country. Findings show that while participants believed non-monetary information (i) better reflects the value of nature, (ii) is more useful than monetary information for environmental decision-making, and (iii) scored it higher in terms of whether the information provided was sufficient to make an informed decision, monetary valuation had a greater pull in determining the actual allocation of the conservation budget. This result has important consequences as it demonstrates that exposure to different forms of information may unwittingly have a significant impact on decision-makers' judgement in management and policy decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Markanday, Ambika & Lliso, Bosco & Sorman, Alevgul H., 2024. "Investing in Nature: Assessing the Effects of Monetary and Non-Monetary Valuations on Decision-Making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:219:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924000326
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924000326
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108135?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas J. McCauley, 2006. "Selling out on nature," Nature, Nature, vol. 443(7107), pages 27-28, September.
    2. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    3. Vatn Arild & Bromley Daniel W., 1994. "Choices without Prices without Apologies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 129-148, March.
    4. Wright, William C.C. & Eppink, Florian V. & Greenhalgh, Suzie, 2017. "Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-139.
    5. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    6. Alexander H DeGolia & Elizabeth H T Hiroyasu & Sarah E Anderson, 2019. "Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(01), pages 1-13, April.
    8. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    9. Jean-Baptiste Marre & Olivier Thebaud & Sean Pascoe & Sarah Jennings & Jean Boncoeur & Louisa Coglan, 2016. "Is economic valuation of ecosystem services useful to decision-makers? Lessons learned from Australian coastal and marine management," Post-Print hal-02152556, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wanek, Eva & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Bourgeois-Gironde, Sacha & Schaafsma, Marije, 2023. "Deliberately vague or vaguely deliberative: A review of motivation and design choices in deliberative monetary valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    2. Diriba Abdeta, 2022. "Households' willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ethiopia: A review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(11), pages 437-451.
    3. Ewa Zawojska & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Crastes & Jordan Louviere, 2016. "On a way to overcome strategic overbidding in open-ended stated preference surveys: A recoding approach," Working Papers 2016-34, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Penn, Jerrod & Jiang, Qi & Hu, Wuyang, 2025. "The Efficacy of Seven Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Methods," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360817, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    7. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2017. "Referenda Under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 479-504, July.
    8. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    9. Papenfus, Michael & Weber, Matt A., 2025. "Valuing wild salmon and steelhead recovery in Oregon’s most urbanized watershed," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    10. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    11. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    12. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    13. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    15. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    16. Joseph Seong & Simone Valle De Souza & April Athnos & H. Christopher Peterson, 2026. "Who is willing to pay a premium for leafy greens produced by indoor agriculture? A comparative choice experiment with US consumers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(1), pages 3-28, January.
    17. McFadden, Brandon R. & Malone, Trey, 2018. "How will mandatory labeling of genetically modified food nudge consumer decision-making?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 186-194.
    18. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav & Karlínová, Bára, 2019. "Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    19. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    20. Gulati, Kajal & Ward, Patrick & Lybbert, Travis & Spielman, David, "undated". "Intrahousehold valuation, preference heterogeneity, and demand of an agricultural technology in Bihar, India," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236280, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:219:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924000326. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.