Payment vs. compensation for ecosystem services: do words have a voice in the design of environmental conservation programs?
Clot, S. This is the latest version of this item.
It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing. To link to this item DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.028 Abstract/SummaryWe examine whether and how word choice can affect individual perceptions about a proposed Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) program when objective outcomes are similar. From a traditional economic perspective, this type of manipulation would be considered unlikely to affect perceptions and behaviour, especially in the presence of pecuniary incentives and repeated decisions among sophisticated agents. From a behaviourally informed perspective, however, psychological and political theories of wording argue that word choice can have a significant impact on economic behaviour. To substantiate this discussion, we conduct a survey experiment that tests the impact of the words ‘payment’ and ‘compensation’ on favorability ratings of a proposed PES program. These preliminary findings suggest that the words used to describe public policies can be influential non-pecuniary interventions.
Download Statistics DownloadsDownloads per month over past year Altmetric Deposit Details Available Versions of this Item
University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record |
Lists
Lists
