Dallimer Martin, Tinch Dugald, Hanley Nick, Irvine Katherine N, Rouquette James R, Warren Philip H, Maltby Lorraine, Gaston Kevin J, Armsworth Paul R
Department of Food and Resource Economics, and Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Conserv Biol. 2014 Apr;28(2):404-13. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12215. Epub 2013 Dec 26.
Given 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.
鉴于生物多样性保护资金有限，有必要了解人们对其不同组成部分的偏好。迄今为止，这种偏好主要是以货币形式衡量的。然而，人们对生物多样性的重视方式可能与经济理论不同，对于货币指标是否总是合适，或者其他方法在多大程度上能提供关于价值的替代和补充观点，几乎没有共识。我们进行了一项选择实验，比较城市绿地休闲游客为增强生物多样性（鸟类、植物和水生大型无脊椎动物物种丰富度的增加）愿意支付的金额，与他们从参观同一地点中获得的自我报告的幸福感心理收益。支付意愿（WTP）估计值显著且为正，受访者报告称，从环境心理学理论（反思、依恋、与过去的连续性）得出的三个维度上，幸福感都有很高的提升。这两个指标大致一致。自我报告幸福感得分中位数以上的参与者，愿意为提高物种丰富度支付的金额显著高于得分中位数以下的参与者，无论涉及何种分类群。参与者的社会经济和人口背景在决定他们的幸福感或在选择实验中选择付费选项的可能性方面作用不大。场地层面的环境特征与支付意愿只是有些关联，但与自我报告的幸福感有很强的相关性。这两种方法可能都反映了一个场地的环境属性与对自然世界未观察到的个体偏好异质性的结合。我们的结果表明，在评估环境偏好时，这两种指标都会得出相互一致的结果，尽管哪种方法更可取取决于人们为何希望衡量对自然世界的价值。
