Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions

By J. Kenter, Rosalind Bryce, Michael Christie, N. Cooper, N. Hockley, K. Irvine, I. Fazey, L. O’Brien, J. Orchard-Webb, N. Ravenscroft and 4 more. 2016

177 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Valuation that focuses only on individual values evades the substantial collective and intersubjective meanings, significance and value from ecosystems. Shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems constitute a diffuse and interdisciplinary field of research, covering an area that links questions around value ontology, elicitation and aggregation with questions of participation, ethics, and social justice. Synthesising understanding from various contributions to this Special Issue of Ecosystem Services, and with a particular focus on deliberation and deliberative valuation, we discuss key findings and present 35 future research questions in eight topic areas: 1) the ontology of shared values; 2) the role of catalyst and conflict points; 3) shared values and cultural ecosystem services; 4) transcendental values; 5) the process and outcomes of deliberation; 6) deliberative monetary valuation; 7) value aggregation, meta-values and ‘rules of the game’; and 8) integrating valuation methods. The results of this Special Issue and these key questions can help develop a more extensive evidence base to mature the area and develop environmental valuation into a more pluralistic, comprehensive, robust, legitimate and effective way of safeguarding ecosystems and their services for the future.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/215b3ba050d356f57b47a857d2b9ac2f4fc8e06a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services (2016, background): “…(e.g. Ajzen, 2004), mostly for validity testing purposes, but there have been few studies that explicitly consider TVs and how they relate to contextual values and WTP as a value indicator (López-Mosquera and Sánchez, 2012; Spash, 2006; Spash et al. 2009; Kenter et al. 2011; 2016a this issue).”
Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value? (2017, methodology): “…of theory and method in relation to shared, plural and cultural values using deliberate techniques such as demonstrated by Irvine et al. (2016) and Kenter et al. (2016b) shows the determination to fundamentally challenge the utilitarian framing and the analytical aggregation of individual values…”
The Deliberative Value Formation model (2016, methodology): “This step would align with the final stages of for example deliberative monetary valuation (e.g. Kenter, 2016b; Kenter et al., 2016a; Orchard-Webb et al., 2016), multicriteria analysis (e.g. Ranger et al., 2016), or citizens’ juries (e.g. Niemeyer, 2004; Fish et al., 2013).”
Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability (2020, methodology): “(Wilson and Howarth, 2002; Howarth and Wilson, 2006; Kenter, 2016; Kenter et al., 2016).”
The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services : integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling (2016, methodology): “…a legitimate deliberation is one that improves participants' ability to value the implications of a hypothetical course of action (also see Kenter et al., 2016a), for example by helping respondents to understand complex environmental goods (Aanesen et al., 2015; Brouwer, 2012; Jobstvogt…”