What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 14, Issue , 2015, Pages 88-97

  Bunse, Lukas ^a,b   Rendon, Olivia ^b   Luque, Sandra ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^c CEMAGREF   (France)

Author keywords

Citizen jury; Deliberative monetary valuation; Ecosystem services; Environmental valuation; Market stall; Stated preferences; Value jury

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937809970     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Aldred J., Jacobs M. Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens' jury. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 34(2):217-232.
2. Álvarez-Farizo B., et al. Choice modeling at the "market stall": individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60(4):743-751.
3. Álvarez-Farizo B., Gil J.M., Howard B.J. Impacts from restoration strategies: assessment through valuation workshops. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68(3):787-797.
4. Álvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N. Improving the process of valuing non-market benefits: combining citizens' juries with choice modelling. Land Econ 2006, 82(3):465-478.
5. Atkinson G., Bateman I., Mourato S. Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2012, 28(1):22-47.
6. Balderas Torres A., et al. The valuation of forest carbon services by Mexican citizens: the case of Guadalajara city and La Primavera biosphere reserve. Regional Environmental Change 2012, 13(3):661-680. (accessed 13.10.13). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10113-012-0336-z.
7. Bateman I., et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
8. Blamey R., et al. Citizens' juries and environmental value assessment. Departmental paper 2000, Australian National University, Canberra.
9. Bohman J. Survey article: the coming of age of deliberative democracy. J. Polit. Philos. 1998, 6(4):400-425.
10. Brown T., Peterson G., Tonn B. The values jury to aid natural resource decisions. Land Econ. 1995, 71(2):250-260.
11. Burgess J., Limb M., Harrison C.M. Exploring environmental values through the medium of small groups: 1. Theory and practice. Environ. Plan. A 1988, 20:309-326.
12. Cardinale B.J., et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 2012, 486(7401):59-67.
13. Carson R., Flores N., Meade N. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 19:173-210.
14. Castro A., et al. Multidimensional approaches in ecosystem service assessment. Earth Observation of Ecosystem Services 2014, 427-454. CRC Press, Boca Raton. D. Alcaraz-Segura, C. Di Bella, J. Straschnoy (Eds.).
15. Chan K.M.A., Guerry A.D., Balvanera P., et al. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 2012, 62(8):744-756.
16. Christie M., et al. An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 83:67-78.
17. Clark J., Burgess J., Harrison C.M. "I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33(1):45-62.
18. Coote A., Lenaghan J. Citizens' Juries: Theory into Pratice 1997, Institute for Public Policy Research, London.
19. Costanza R., et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 26:152-158.
20. Costanza R., et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
21. Daily G.C., et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7(1):21-28.
22. De Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7(3):260-272.
23. Dietz T., Stern P., Dan A. How deliberation affects stated willingness to pay for mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions: an experiment. Land Econ. 2009, 85(2):329-347.
24. Douai A. Value theory in ecological economics: the contribution of a political economy of wealth. Environ. Values 2009, 18(3):257-284.
25. Farber S.C., Costanza R., Wilson M.A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41(3):375-392.
26. Fisher B., Turner R.K., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68(3):643-653.
27. Fürst C., Opdam P., Inostroza L., Luque S. A balance score card tool for assessing how successful the ecosystem services concept is applied in participatory land use planning. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29(8):1435-1446.
28. Goodin R.E., Dryzek J.S. Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Polit. Soc. 2006, 34(2):219-244.
29. Gregory R. Valuing environmental policy options: a case study comparison of multiattribute and contingent valuation survey methods. Land Econ. 2000, 76(2):151-173.
30. Gregory R., Keeny R.L. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Manag. Sci. 1994, 40(8):1035-1048.
31. Gregory R., Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J. Risk Uncertain. 1993, 7:177-197.
32. Gregory R., Slovic P. A constructive approach to environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 21:175-181.
33. Gregory R., Wellman K. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 39(1):37-52.
34. Hanley N., Shogren J.F. Is cost-benefit analysis anomaly-proof?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 32(1):13-24.
35. Hanley N., Shogren J.F., White B. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice 2007, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. second ed.
36. Hanley N., Shogren J., White B. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice 1997, Macmillan, Basingstoke. first ed.
37. Hein L., et al. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57(2):209-228.
38. Hoehn J., Randall A. The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resour. Energy Econ. 2002, 24:13-31.
39. Howarth R., Wilson M. A theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: aggregation by mutual consent. Land Econ. 2006, 82(1):1-16.
40. Ito N., et al. The influence of decision-making rules on individual preferences for ecological restoration: evidence from an experimental survey. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68(8-9):2426-2431.
41. Jack B.K., Kousky C., Sims K.R.E. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105:9465-9470.
42. Jacobs M. Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision- making institutions. Valuing Nature? Economics Ethics and the Environment 1997, 211-231. Rouledge, London. J. Foster (Ed.).
43. Kahneman D., Knetsch J. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1992, 22:57-70.
44. Kenter J.O., et al. The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries-evidence from the Solomon Islands. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21(2):505-521.
45. Kenyon W., Hanley N., Nevin C. Citizens' juries: an aid to environmental valuation?. Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 2001, 19(4):557-566.
46. Kenyon W., Nevin C. The use of economic and participatory approaches to assess forest development: a case study in the Ettrick Valley. Forest Policy Econ. 2001, 3:69-80.
47. Kolstad C.D. Environmental Economics Volume 1 2000, 400. Oxford University Press.
48. Kosoy N., Corbera E., Brown K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: Case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 2008, 39:2073-2083.
49. Krutilla J.V. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 1967, 57(4):777-786.
50. Lenaghan J. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries. Health Policy 1999, 49:45-61.
51. Lienhoop N., Fischer A. Can you be bothered? The role of participant motivation in the valuation of species conservation measures. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52(4):519-534.
52. Lienhoop N., MacMillan D. Contingent valuation: comparing participant performance in group-based approaches and personal interviews. Environ. Values 2007, 16(2):209-231.
53. Lienhoop N., MacMillan D. 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. Available at.
54. Lo A.Y. Analysis and democracy: the antecedents of the deliberative approach of ecosystems valuation. Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 2011, 29(6):958-974.
55. Lo A.Y., Spash C. Deliberative monetary valuation: in search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy. J. Econ. Surv. 2013, 27(4):768-789.
56. MacMillan D., Hanley N., Lienhoop N. Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine?. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:299-307.
57. Macmillan D.D., et al. Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 43:49-59.
58. Maguire L.A., Servheen C. Integrating biological and sociological concerns in endangered species management: augmentation of grizzly bear populations. Conserv. Biol. 1992, 6(3):426-434.
59. Martinez-Alier J., Munda G., O'Neill J. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 26(3):277-286.
60. McDaniels T.L., et al. Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 46(1):33-46.
61. McDaniels T.L. Reference points, loss aversion, and contingent values for auto safety. J. Risk Uncertain. 1992, 5(2):187-200.
62. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
63. Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., May P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1202-1208.
64. Niemeyer S., Spash C. Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 2001, 19(4):567-585.
65. O'Neill J. Representing people, representing nature, representing the world. Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 2001, 19(4):483-500.
66. O'Neill J., Spash C. Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making. Environ. Values 2000, 9:521-536.
67. Opdam P. Using ecosystem services in community based planning: science is not ready to deliver. Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture 2013, 77-101. Springer, Berlin. B. Fu, K.B. Jones (Eds.).
68. Parks S., Gowdy J. What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 3:e1-e10.
69. Pascual U., Muradian R., Brander L., Gómez-Baggethun E., Martín-López M., Verman M., Armsworth P., Christie M., Cornelissen H., Eppink F., Farley J., Loomis J., Pearson L., Perrings C., Polasky S, The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations 2010, 183-256. Earthscan, London. P.,. Kumar (Ed.).
70. Pearce D., Turner R. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment 1990, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, London.
71. Pereira H.M., et al. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 2010, 330(6010):1496-1501.
72. Philip L.J., MacMillan D. Exploring values, context and perceptions in contingent valuation studies: the CV market stall technique and willingness to pay for wildlife conservation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2005, 48(2):257-274.
73. Potschin M.B., Haines-Young RH., Ecosystem services exploring a geographical perspective. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35(5):575-594.
74. Raymond C.M., Kenter J.O., Plieninger T., Turner N.J., Alexander K.A. Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 107:145-156.
75. Robinson J., Clouston B., Suh J., Chaloupka M. Are citizens' juries a useful tool for assessing environmental value?. Environ. Conserv 2008, 35:351-360. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892908005213〉
76. Russell, R. et al., 2013. Humans and Nature: How Knowing and Experiencing Nature Affect Well-Being,.
77. Sagoff M. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 24:213-230.
78. Schkade D.A., Payne J.W. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 26:88-109.
79. Spangenberg J.H., Settele J. Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7(3):327-337.
80. Spash C.L., Broadening democracy in environmental policy processes. Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 2001, 19(4):475-481.
81. Spash C. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63(4):690-699.
82. Spash C. Deliberative monetary valuation and the evidence for a new value theory. Land Econ. 2008, 84(3):469-488.
83. Spash C. How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the bio-diverse trail. Environ. Values 2008, 17(2):259-284.
84. Spash C. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Econ. 2006, 82(4):602-622.
85. Szabó Z. Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 72:37-44. (accessed 13.10.13). http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800911004010.
86. TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2010, Earthscan, London. P. Kumar (Ed.).
87. Urama K., Hodge I. Participatory environmental education and willingness to pay for river basin management: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Land Econ. 2006, 82(4):542-561.
88. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68(8-9):2207-2215.
89. Ward H. Citizens' juries and valuing the environment: a proposal. Environ. Polit. 1999, 8(2):75-96.
90. Ward H., et al. Open citizens' juries and the politics of sustainability. Polit. Stud. 2003, 51(2):282-299.
91. Wätzold F., et al. Estimating optimal conservation in the context of agri-environmental schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68:295-305. Available at. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.007.
92. Wegner G., Pascual U. Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21(2):492-504. (accessed 02.10.13). http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378010001226.
93. Whitehead J., Blomquist G. Measuring contingent values for wetlands: effects of information about related environmental goods. Water Resour. Res. 1991, 27(10):2523-2531.
94. Whittington D., et al. Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1992, 22:205-225.
95. Wilson M.A., Howarth R.B. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41(3):431-443.
96. Deliberative ecological economics. Ecological Economics and Human Well-Being. 2008, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. C. Zografos, R.B. Howarth (Eds.).