Dugald Tinch
University of Stirling
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Dugald Tinch.
Conservation Biology | 2014
Martin Dallimer; Dugald Tinch; Nick Hanley; Katherine N. Irvine; James R. Rouquette; Philip H. Warren; Lorraine Maltby; Kevin J. Gaston; Paul R. Armsworth
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.
European Review of Agricultural Economics | 2006
Nick Hanley; Sergio Colombo; Dugald Tinch; Andrew R. Black; Ashar Aftab
Journal of Applied Ecology | 2009
Martin Dallimer; Dugald Tinch; Szvetlana Acs; Nick Hanley; Humphrey Southall; Kevin J. Gaston; Paul R. Armsworth
Marine Policy | 2013
Stephen Hynes; Dugald Tinch; Nick Hanley
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | 2014
Jacob LaRiviere; Mikolaj Czajkowski; Nick Hanley; Margrethe Aanesen; Jannike Falk-Petersen; Dugald Tinch
Ecological Economics | 2006
John C. V. Pezzey; Nick Hanley; Karen Turner; Dugald Tinch
Journal of Applied Ecology | 2008
Nick Hanley; Althea Davies; Konstantinos Angelopoulos; Alastair Hamilton; Alasdair Ross; Dugald Tinch; Fiona Watson
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | 2009
Nick Hanley; Dugald Tinch; Konstantinos Angelopoulos; Althea Davies; Edward B. Barbier; Fiona Watson
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment | 2016
David M. Oliver; Nick Hanley; Melanie van Niekerk; David Kay; A. Louise Heathwaite; Sharyl J. M. Rabinovici; Julie L. Kinzelman; Lora E. Fleming; Jonathan Porter; Sabina L. Shaikh; Robert Fish; S. M. Chilton; Julie Hewitt; Elaine Connolly; Andy Cummins; Klaus Glenk; Calum McPhail; Eric McRory; Alistair McVittie; Amanna Giles; Suzanne Roberts; Katherine Simpson; Dugald Tinch; Ted Thairs; Lisa M. Avery; A.J.A. Vinten; Bill D. Watts; Richard S. Quilliam
Archive | 2003
John C. V. Pezzey; Nick Hanley; Karen Turner; Dugald Tinch