IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i4p955-964.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Spash, Clive L.
  • Urama, Kevin
  • Burton, Rob
  • Kenyon, Wendy
  • Shannon, Peter
  • Hill, Gary

Abstract

This paper reports on empirical work extending the standard economic approach to valuation by including psychological and philosophical factors. More specifically a contingent valuation method survey was applied to biodiversity improvement while simultaneously assessing rights based beliefs, consequentialism and the theory of planned behaviour. The latter was assessed using measures of attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control over willingness to pay. The results show that standard socio-economic explanatory variables are far inferior to those of social psychology and philosophy, and that these factors offer a better understanding of the motives behind responses to contingent valuation. The implication is that alternative means of measuring an individual's pluralistic values should be taken into account in order to assess the validity and meaning of willingness to pay.

Suggested Citation

  • Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:4:p:955-964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(06)00470-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-235, December.
    2. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    3. Arild Vatn, 2004. "Environmental Valuation and Rationality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 1-18.
    4. O'Connor, Martin, 2000. "Pathways for environmental evaluation: a walk in the (Hanging) Gardens of Babylon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 175-193, August.
    5. Clive L. Spash, 2006. "Non-Economic Motivation for Contingent Values: Rights and Attitudinal Beliefs in the Willingness To Pay for Environmental Improvements," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(4), pages 602-622.
    6. Pouta, Eija, 2004. "Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 229-242, April.
    7. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    8. Spash, Clive L., 2000. "Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-215, August.
    9. Spash, Clive L., 2002. "Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 665-687, October.
    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. Clive L Spash, 2007. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Practice," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2007-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    2. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    3. Menzel, Susanne & Wiek, Arnim, 2009. "Valuation in morally charged situations: The role of deontological stances and intuition for trade-off making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2198-2206, June.
    4. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Clive L Spash, 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    10. Spash, Clive L., 2015. "Bulldozing Biodiversity: The Economics of Optimal Extinction," SRE-Discussion Papers 2015/01, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    11. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Pirscher, Frauke, 2015. "Die Kommodifizierung Von Moral - Lassen Sich Moralische Fragen Zum Umgang Mit Nutztieren Über Den Markt Lösen?," 55th Annual Conference, Giessen, Germany, September 23-25, 2015 209193, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    13. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele, 2018. "Beyond Rationality, Towards Reasonableness: Enriching the Theoretical Foundation of Deliberative Monetary Valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 97-104.
    14. Clive L Spash, 2007. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Theory," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2007-01, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    15. Óscar Carpintero, 2013. "When Heterodoxy Becomes Orthodoxy: Ecological Economics in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(5), pages 1287-1314, November.
    16. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Dynamic Processes in the Contingent Valuation of an Endangered Mammal Species," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55064, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    17. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    18. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
    19. Wolfgang Fellner & Clive L. Spash, 2014. "The Illusion of Consumer Sovereignity in Economic and Neoliberal Thought," SRE-Disc sre-disc-2014_02, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    20. Knut Veisten & Ståle Navrud & Johnny Valen, 2006. "Lexicographic preference in biodiversity valuation: Tests of inconsistencies and willingness to pay," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 167-180.

    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:68:y:2009:i:4:p:955-964. 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.