This doctoral thesis consists of an introductory preface and four independent papers, addressing and examining different aspects of crowdfunding. The papers focus on the role of perceptions, signalling and gender effects in influencing the outcomes for environmentally oriented crowdfunding initiatives. Paper 1 investigates how an average backer's perceptions of a crowdfunding project's environmental characteristics impact funding outcomes. The empirical analysis is based on data from 406 projects, and four individuals' independent assessments of each project's degree of different environmental characteristics. There is partial evidence that projects perceived as environmentally beneficial are more successful than others in securing funding. However, evidence shows that signalling a project as environmentally beneficial negatively affects crowdfunding outcomes, regardless of whether the project is perceived as genuinely environmentally beneficial or as using greenwashing tactics. Thus, project owners ought to be cautious with making environmental claims to market their projects. In Paper 2, voluntary crowdfunding donations are used as a payment vehicle to examine the attitudes for restoring the aurochs, an extinct keystone species. By reintroducing the aurochs, some ecosystem services could be restored. However, de-extinction could be viewed as "unnatural" by the general public, potentially harmful for the legitimacy of conservation policy. The paper investigates whether attitudes towards restoring the aurochs are dependent on the de-extinction technique: breeding or gene editing. The empirical data are based on a split-sample contingent valuation survey of over 2000 individuals, and the findings indicate that while the de-extinction technique does not affect crowdfunding donations on average, women are more reluctant than men to donate to the project if it employs a gene-editing technology. Additionally, the results indicate large heterogeneity in willingness to pay; however, in general, higher willingness to pay is found amongst younger individuals and within members of environmental organisations. Paper 3 focuses on gender effects in donation crowdfunding for an environmentally oriented initiative. Specifically, the study investigates potential gender bias against the project owner, as well as gender differences amongst backers. The results are based on a split-sample contingent valuation survey of over 1600 respondents, where half of the respondents were presented with a male project owner, and the other half was presented with a female project owner. The results suggest there is no gender bias in funding decisions: both project owners were equally likely to secure funding for their initiatives. Additionally, there was little evidence of gender differences between respondents. Instead, other respondent and project characteristics, such as age, latent environmental attitudes and requested donation amount, affect the decision to contribute to the environmental crowdfunding project. Paper 4 also investigates gender biases against the project owner, however, in a lending crowdfunding setting. The study employs a split-sample choice experiment, presenting an energy technology demonstration project. While such projects are generally led by men, the split-sample survey allows for alternating the gender of the project owner. The study investigates whether risk signals and project attributes are interpreted differently based on the gender of the entrepreneur. The results are based on responses from 2000 individuals, and indicate little evidence of gender bias. However, male respondents are more likely to invest in a project in which a female project owner has established a network to collaborate with, but are also more negative towards a project with a female leader who has no such collaboration.