Qualitative valuation of environmental criteria through a group consensus based on stochastic dominance

Ecological Economics

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 253-264

  Zendehdel, Kamran ^a   Rademaker, Michael ^a   De Baets, Bernard ^a   Van Huylenbroeck, Guido ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Discursive valuation; Group consensus; Incommensurability; Monotonicity; Qualitative scale; Stochastic dominance

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; STAKEHOLDER; STOCHASTICITY;

EID: 49949087410     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.013     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Arrow K.J. Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd edition (1963), John Wiley, New York
2. Brouwer R., Powe N., Turner R.K., Bateman I.J., and Langford I.H. Public attitudes to contingent valuation and public consultation. Environmental Values 8 (1999) 325-347
3. Cao-Van K., and De Baets B. An instance-based algorithm for learning rankings. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Dutch-Belgian conference of machine learning. Brussels, Belgium (2004)
4. Chilton S.M., and Hutchinson W.G. Do focus groups contribute anything to the contingent valuation process?. Journal of Economic Psychology 20 (1999) 465-483
5. Cook W.D. Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking. European Journal of Operational Research 172 (2006) 369-385
6. Cook W.D., and Kress M. Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference. Management Science 31 (1985) 26-33
7. Cookson R. Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study. Journal of Health Economics 19 (2000) 369-401
8. Craven J. Social Choice: A Framework for Collective Decision and Individual Judgments (1992), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
9. Davey, and Priestley. Introduction to Lattices and Order (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
10. De Keyser W.S.M., and Peeters P.H.M. ARGUS-A new multiple criteria method based on the general idea of outranking (1994), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
11. Diamond P. Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 337-347
12. Diamond P.A., and Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1994) 45-65
13. Diemer J.A., and Mckean J.R. The assessment of community preference: a methodology and case study. Land Economics 54 (1978) 244-252
14. Fischhoff B., Welch N., and Frederick S. Construal processes in preference assessment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19 (1999) 139-164
15. Gaertner W. A Primer in Social Choice Theory (2006), Oxford University Press, New York
16. Garrod G., and Kenneth G.W. Economic Valuation of the Environment. Methods and Case Studies (1999), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
17. Hausman J.E. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Appraisal (1993), Elsevier, Amsterdam
18. Howarth R., and Wilson M. A theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: aggregation by mutual consent. Land Economics 82 (2006) 1-16
19. Johansson P.O. An Introduction to Modern Welfare Economics (1991), Cambridge University Press, London
20. Kahneman D., and Knetsch J.L. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (1992) 57-70
21. Kahneman D., Ritov I., and Schkade D. Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: an analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19 (1999) 203-235
22. Kahneman D., Ritov L., Karen E., and Gran P. Stated willingness to pay for public goods. A psychological perspective. Psychological Science 4 (1993) 310-315
23. Kangas A., Laukkanen S., and Kangas J. Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management-a review. Forest Policy and Economics 9 (2006) 77-92
24. Kevin W.S.R. Interpersonal comparability and social choice theory. The Review of Economic Studies 47 (1980) 421-439
25. Knetsch J.L. Environmental valuation: some problems of wrong questions and misleading answers. Journal of Environmental Values 3 (1994) 351-368
26. Levy H. Stochastic Dominance (2000), Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht
27. Lievens, S. & De Baets, B., in press. Supervised ranking in the WEKA environment. Information Sciences.
28. Lievens, S., De Baets, B. & Cao-Van, K., in press. A probabilistic framework for the design of instance-based supervised ranking algorithms in an ordinal setting. Annals of Operations Research. DOI:10.1007/s10479-008-0326-1.
29. Liljas B., and Lindgren B. On individual preferences and aggregation in economic evaluation in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics 19 (2001) 323-336
30. Louis G. On interpersonal comparability and social welfare orderings. Econometrica 47 (1979) 75-89
31. Mas-Colell A., Whinston M.D., and Green J.R. Microeconomic Theory (1995), Oxford University Press, Oxford
32. Miller G. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 101 (1955) 343-352
33. Nurmi H. Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them (1999), Springer-Verlag, Berlin
34. O'neill J. Ecology, Policy and Politics: Human Well-being and the Natural World (1993), Routledge, London
35. Perkins E. Discourse-based valuation and ecological economics. Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics (2001), McGill University, Montreal, Canada
36. Proctor W., and Drechsler M. Deliberative multi-criteria evaluation: a case study of recreation and tourism options in Victoria, Australia. European Society for Ecological Economics, Frontiers 2. Tenerife, Spain (2003)
37. Ruto E., and Garrod G. Using Choice Experiments to Analyse Farmers' Preferences for the Governance Attributes Of Agri-environment Schemes (2004), School of agriculture food and rural development. University of Newcastle
38. Saaty T.L., and Ozdemir M.S. Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 38 (2003) 233-244
39. Sagoff M. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics 24 (1998) 213-230
40. Slovic P. The construction of preference. American Psychologist 50 (1995) 364-371
41. Smith G. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment (2003), Routledge Press, London
42. Spash C.L. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics 63 (2007) 690-699
43. Spash C.L., and Vatn A. Transferring environmental value estimates: issues and alternatives. Ecological Economics 60 (2006) 379-388
44. Springael J., and De Keyser W. A new generation of multi-criteria based group decision support methods. The 17th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making (2004), Whistler, B.C., Canada
45. Tompkins E.L. Using stakeholders' preferences in multi-attribute decision making: elicitation and aggregation issues. CSERGE working paper (2003), ECM 03-13
46. Urcola H.A., and Lowenberg-Deboer J. A stochastic dominance method for incorporating yield monitor data into the hybrid and variety decisions of Argentinean farmers. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 58 (2007) 4-12
47. Van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Ferrer-I-Carbonell A., and Munda G. Alternative models of individual behaviour and implications for environmental policy. Ecological Economics 32 (2000) 43-61
48. Vatn A. Environmental valuation and rationality. Land Economics 80 (2004) 1-18