In this commentary we critically discuss the suitability of payments for ecosystem services and the most important challenges they face. While such instruments can play a role in improving environmental governance, we argue that over‐reliance on payments as win‐win solutions might lead to ineffective outcomes, similar to earlier experience with integrated conservation and development projects. Our objective is to raise awareness, particularly among policy makers and practitioners, about the limitations of such instruments and to encourage a dialogue about the policy contexts in which they might be appropriate.

The authors explore the impact of geographical proximity of environmental problems on environmental concern and willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental improvement, with emphasis on the relevance of Inglehart’s postmaterialism thesis on this inquiry. A questionnaire was administered to 1,565 respondents in Istanbul. The Contingent Valuation Method was used to measure WTP. Sea pollution in Istanbul (local issue), soil erosion in Turkey (national issue), and ozone depletion (global issue) were issues chosen for valuation. The sample was separated into three subsamples, with each being presented with only one issue. Individuals distinguish between local and global environmental concern. People with materialist values rather than postmaterialist values exhibit more concern for local environmental problems. However, postmaterialist values determine WTP for improvement in both the local and the global environmental problems. Distinguishing among concern for environmental issues, which are differentiated on the basis of geographical proximity, has relevance for the ongoing postmaterialist values debate.