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

Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods

“…There has been a growing interest in the use of the TPB in the field of stated preference valuation, mainly in contingent valuation surveys (López-Mosquera and Sánchez 2012, 2014, Liebe et al 2011, Spash et al 2009, Bernath and Roschewitz 2008, Meyerhoff 2006, Ajzen et al 2004, Werner et al 2002, Pouta and Rekola 2001, Luzar and Cossé 1998, Ajzen and Driver 1992. Ajzen and Driver (1992) find that all three TPB components correlate strongly with stated WTP a user fee for different outdoor leisure activities.…”

“…Based on these results, Pouta and Rekola (2001) conclude that WTP statements can be interpreted as behavioural intentions with respect to contributing, but also constitute an attitudinal expression regarding the good or policy to be valued. Spash et al (2009) include ethical statements and the three TPB components in a regression model of WTP for restoring biodiversity within a river catchment. They find that the inclusion of the TPB components extraordinarily improves explanatory power (adjusted 2 increases from 0.23 to 0.48), with ATT, PBC and SN explaining the greatest part of the variance in WTP.…”

Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values

“…Political Action (PA) Attitude Scale (based upon Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993) Item 1: I would participate in a demonstration against companies that are harming the environment Item 3: I would sign a petition in support of tougher environmental laws Item 4: I would take a job with a company I knew was harming the environment Item 5: I would never do voluntary work for nature conservation Item 6: Environmental activists are a public nuisance whom I would never support Beliefs Supportive of Environmental Action (BSEA) Attitude Scale (on the development of this scale see Ryan & Spash 2010, 2012 Item 1: Environmental protection will provide a better world for me and my children Item 2: Environmental protection is beneficial to my health Item 3: A clean environment provides me with better opportunities for recreation Item 4: Environmental protection benefits everyone Item 5: Environmental protection will help people have a better quality of life Item 6: Tropical rain forests are essential to maintain a healthy planet earth Item 7: The effect of pollution on public health are worse than we realise Item 8: Pollution generated here harms people all over the earth Item 9: Over the next several decades, thousands of species will become extinct Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Attitude scale (developed by Spash et al 2009) 1a.…”

“…The core component of the contribution model which concerns us here is that in a CVM survey, rather than assessing the worth of public goods provision, participants are offering a donation that simply reflects their psychological attitudes towards the proposed change. Other authors have suggested that while attitudes can be one of the motives that influences CVM responses to proposals concerning public goods there are several other possible influences-including income, economic purchase motives, perceived control, norms and different ethical motives (see for example Schkade and Payne, 1994;Brown et al, 1996;Ajzen et al, 2004;Spash, 2006;Spash et al, 2009). However, Kahneman and Ritov (1994: 28) put forward an exclusive attitudinal hypothesis when they state that "WTP is a measure of attitude on a scale of hypothetical dollars".…”

Re-establishing an ecological discourse in the policy debate over how to value ecosystems and biodiversity

“…This runs counter to the evidence for multiple values and the motives behind environmental valuation (Spash, 1998(Spash, , 2000bSpash et al, 2009). In the context of work on contingent valuation of biodiversity and ecosystems the occurrence of refusals to tradeoff, rights-based beliefs and lexicographic preferences all bring into question the use of economic logic, let alone new environmental pragmatism.…”