IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Putting action into biodiversity planning: assessing preferences towards funding


  • Neil Powe
  • William Wadsworth
  • Guy Garrod
  • Paul Mcmahon


Water companies in England and Wales are responsible for the management of large areas of land. This land is under little pressure for development and is often free from the pollutants associated with conventional agriculture and is therefore a potentially valuable resource for biodiversity conservation. The value of this resource will only be realized if sufficient investment is made in the management of the habitats associated with these sites. This paper reports an exploratory case study based on customers of Southern Water which uses a mixture of questionnaire surveys and focus groups to investigate whether or not consumers are willing to pay higher utility bills to fund such management. In particular, it explores the public's willingness to forgo potential bill reductions in order to fund biodiversity conservation and examines how payment instruments could be designed to maximize and maintain the agreement from consumers. Results suggest that customers are willing to forgo a proportion of a potential bill reduction to pay for biodiversity schemes but are not necessarily willing to face a bill increase for the same public good benefits. Participants in the focus groups suggested that schemes could be made more acceptable to customers by ensuring that the outcomes were both visible and local and that their achievements were well publicized. Similarly, administration of the scheme through a trust fund alleviates some of the concerns of consumers while raising several new ones.

Suggested Citation

  • Neil Powe & William Wadsworth & Guy Garrod & Paul Mcmahon, 2004. "Putting action into biodiversity planning: assessing preferences towards funding," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 287-301.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:47:y:2004:i:2:p:287-301
    DOI: 10.1080/0964056042000209067

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:taf:jenpmg:v:47:y:2004:i:2:p:287-301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.