Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDallimer, Martinen_UK
dc.contributor.authorTinch, Dugalden_UK
dc.contributor.authorHanley, Nicholasen_UK
dc.contributor.authorIrvine, Katherine Nen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRouquette, James Ren_UK
dc.contributor.authorWarren, Philip Hen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMaltby, Lorraineen_UK
dc.contributor.authorGaston, Kevin Jen_UK
dc.contributor.authorArmsworth, Paul Ren_UK
dc.description.abstractGiven 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.en_UK
dc.relationDallimer M, Tinch D, Hanley N, Irvine KN, Rouquette JR, Warren PH, Maltby L, Gaston KJ & Armsworth PR (2014) Quantifying preferences for the natural world using monetary and nonmonetary assessments of value. Conservation Biology, 28 (2), pp. 404-413.
dc.rights© 2013 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the Society for Conservation Biology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_UK
dc.subjectchoice modelingen_UK
dc.subjectecosystem servicesen_UK
dc.subjectpsychological well-beingen_UK
dc.subjectstated preferenceen_UK
dc.subjecturban ecologyen_UK
dc.titleQuantifying preferences for the natural world using monetary and nonmonetary assessments of valueen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.citation.jtitleConservation Biologyen_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Copenhagenen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationDe Montfort Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Sheffielden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Sheffielden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Sheffielden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Exeteren_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Tennesseeen_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
local.rioxx.authorDallimer, Martin|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorTinch, Dugald|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHanley, Nicholas|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorIrvine, Katherine N|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRouquette, James R|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWarren, Philip H|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMaltby, Lorraine|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorGaston, Kevin J|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorArmsworth, Paul R|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|
Appears in Collections:Economics Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
DALLIMER_et_al-2014-Conservation_Biology.pdfFulltext - Published Version368.19 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.