Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation

Ecological Economics

Volumn 72, Issue , 2011, Pages 37-44

  Szabó, Zoltán ^a  

^a Institute of Data Analytics and Information Systems   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Agriculture; Biodiversity valuation; Deliberative Monetary Valuation; Lexicographic preferences; Protest responses; Unformed preferences

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE; BIODIVERSITY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; MONETARY POLICY;

DASHEEN MOSAIC VIRUS;

EID: 82755196242     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.025     Document Type: Short Survey

References (49)

1. Álvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N. Improving the process of valuing non-market benefits: combining citizens' juries with choice modelling. Land Economics 2006, 82:465-478.
2. Álvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N., Barberán R., Lázaro A. Choice modeling at the "market stall": individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 2007, 60(2007):743-751.
3. Bateman I.J., Burgess D., Hutchinson W.G., Matthews D. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2008, 55(2):127-141.
4. Blamey R.K., Common M.S. Valuation and ethics in environmental economics. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1999, 809-823. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. J. van den Bergh (Ed.).
5. Brouwer R., Powe N., Turner R.K., Langford I.H., Bateman I.J. Public attitudes to contingent valuation and public consultation. Environmental Values 1999, 8:325_/347.
6. Buijs A., Fischer A., Rink D., Young J. Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: understanding public representations of biological diversity. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 2008, 4:65-80.
7. Christie M., Hanley N., Warren J., Murphy K., Wright R., Hyde T. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics 2006, 58(2):304-317.
8. Clark J., Burgess J., Harrison C.M. I struggled with this money business: respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 2000, 33:45_/62.
9. Common M., Reid I., Blamey R. Do existence values for cost benefit exist?. Environmental and Resource Economics 1997, 9:225-238.
10. DEFRA Survey of Public Attitudes to Quality of Life and to the Environment-2001 2002, DEFRA, London.
11. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues 2000, 56(3):425-442.
12. Ellemers N., Spears R., Doosje B. Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology 2002, 53:161-186.
13. Fischer A., Hanley N. Analysing decision behaviour in stated preference surveys: a consumer psychological approach. Ecological Economics 2007, 61:303-314.
14. Fischer A., Young J. Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation 2007, 136:271-282.
15. Frör O. Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: empirical evidence using cognitive psychology. Ecological Economics 2008, 68:570-581.
16. Gelso B.R., Peterson J.M. The influence of ethical attitudes on the demand for environmental recreation: incorporating lexicographic preferences. Ecological Economics 2005, 53:35-45.
17. Getzner M. A framework for valuing nature: regional biodiversity. Alternatives for Environmental Valuation 2005, 23-50. Routledge. M. Getzner, C.L. Spash, S. Stagl (Eds.).
18. Alternatives for Environmental Valuation 2005, 298. 2005, Routledge, London. M. Getzner, C.L. Spash, S. Stagl (Eds.).
19. Gowdy J., Erickson J.D. The approach of ecological economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005, 2005(29):207-222.
20. Hunter L., Brehm J. Qualitative insight into public knowledge of and concern with biodiversity. Human Ecology 2003, 31:309-320.
21. James R.F., Blamey R.K. Deliberation and economic valuation: national park management. Alternatives for Environmental Valuation 2005, 225-243. Routledge, London. M. Getzner, C.L. Spash, S. Stagl (Eds.).
22. Jones N., Sophoulis C.M., Malesios C. Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece. The Journal of Socio-Economics 2008, 37:2478-2491.
23. Jorgensen B., Syme G. Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for storm water pollution abatement. Ecological Economics 2000, 33:251-265.
24. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22(1):57-70.
25. Kenyon W., Hanley N.D. Three approaches to valuing nature: forest floodplain restoration. Alternatives for Environmental Valuation 2005, 209-224. Routledge, London. M. Getzner, C.L. Spash, S. Stagl (Eds.).
26. Kumar M., Kumar P. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics 2007, 64(2007):808-819.
27. Lienhoop N., Fischer A. Can you be bothered? The role of participant motivation in the valuation of species conservation measures. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52:519-534.
28. Lienhoop N., MacMillan D.C. Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 2007, 24(1):289-295.
29. Lienhoop N., MacMillan D.C. Contingent valuation: comparing participant performance in group-based approaches and personal interviews. Environmental Values 2007, 16(2):209-232.
30. MacMillan D., Philip L., Hanley N., Alvarez-Farizo B. Valuing non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches. Ecological Economics 2002, 43(2002):49-59.
31. Macmillan D.C., Hanley N., Lienhoop N. Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine?. Ecological Economics 2006, 60(1):299-307.
32. Marjainé Szerényi Zs. A feltételes értékelés alkalmazhatósága Magyarországon 2005, Akadémiai Kiadó.
33. Meyerhoff J. Non-use values and attitudes: wetlands threatened by climate change. Alternatives for Environmental Valuation 2005, 51-68. Routledge, London. M. Getzner, C.L. Spash, S. Stagl (Eds.).
34. Meyerhoff J., Liebe L. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:583-594.
35. Meyerhoff J., Liebe L. Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: a meta-study. Ecological Economics 2010, 70:366-374.
36. Sagoff M. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics 1998, 24(2-3):213-230.
37. Simon H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1955, 69:99-118.
38. Spash C.L. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Economics 2006, 82(4):602-622. November.
39. Spash C.L. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics 2007, 63(2007):690-699.
40. Spash C.L. Deliberative monetary valuation and the evidence for a new value theory. Land Economics 2008, 84(3):469-488. August 2008.
41. Spash C.L., Hanley N. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics 1995, 12(3):191-208.
42. Spash C.L., Stagl S., Getzner M. Exploring alternatives for environmental valuation. alternatives for environmental valuation 2005, 1-20. 2005, Routledge, London. M. Getzner, C.L. Spash, S. Stagl (Eds.).
43. Stevens T.H., Echeverria J., Glass R., Hager T., More T. Measuring the existence value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show?. Land Economics 1991, 64(4):390-400. 1991.
44. Szabó Z., 2008. Valuation of Biodiversity: Deliberative Monetary Valuation combined with qualitative assessments in the field of agriculture. In: Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility Accounting - measuring and managing business benefits. EMAN-EU 2008 Conference Proceedings, Budapest, Corvinus University Budapest, Aula. pp.167. p.101-106.
45. Szabó, Z. and Pál, J, 2007. Agriculture Case Study in Hungary: Crops. In: Methods and data on environmental and health externalities: harmonising and sharing of operational estimates. Final Technical Report: Case Studies. MethodEx, FP6 Programme, European Commission, pp.299. p.469-528. http://www.methodex.org/methodex_deliverable_12b.pdf.
46. Urama K.C., Hodge I. Participatory environmental education and willingness to pay for river basin management: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Land Economics 2006, 82:542-561.
47. Vatn A., Bromley D.W. Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics Management 1994, 26:129-148.
48. Vicsek L. Fókuszcsoport, Osiris Kiadó 2006, 401. Budapest.
49. Wätzold F., Lienhoop N., Drechsler M., Settele J. Estimating optimal conservation in the context of agri-environmental schemes. Ecological Economics 2008, 68(1-2):295-305.