Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change

By C. Spash. 2007

277 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/601d1087d17133f9036943139712540e29757b85

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 Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

What are shared and social values of ecosystems (2015, background): “…and deliberative processes are appealing in that they provide participants of valuation studies with time to learn about the good under investigation, as well as time to reflect upon (and construct or potentiallymodify) their preferences (Christie et al., 2006;Macmillan et al., 2002; Spash, 2007).”
The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries - evidence from the Solomon Islands (2011, background): “…been expressed many times (Arrow et al., 1993; Hoehn and Randall, 2002; Macmillan et al., 2006; Niemeyer and Spash, 2001; Schiffman and Kanuk, 1991; Spash, 2002, 2007, 2008a; Urama and Hodge, 2006; Whilehead and Blomquist, 1991; Whittington, 1998; Whittington et al., 1992), but in many cases this…”
Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity (2015, background): “Furthermore, four studies in our review made use of deliberative approaches to economic valuation, which combine the deliberative aspects of citizens’ juries with the elicitation of individual preferences through CV or CE and better enable respondents to express their preferences for complex and unf”
Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach (2017, background): “d) Deliberative valuation allows values to be discovered, constructed and reflected in a dialogue/negotiation among stakeholders [38,39].”
Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe (2010, background): “citizen juries, deliberative workshops, surveys) in the valuation exercises to emphasize the relevance of preference construction and learning among the counterparts in the decision making process (Kenyon and Hanley, 2004; Spash, 2007; Álvarez-Farizo et al., 2007; Dolan et al., 2007; Stagl, 2007a;Sp”
The Deliberative Value Formation model (2016, unknown): “…theory that could underpin deliberative valuation (e.g. Wilson and Howarth, 2002; Niemeyer, 2004; O’Neill, 2007; O’Neill, Holland and Light, 2008; Spash, 2007; 2008; Lo and Spash, 2012; Lo, 2013; Kenter et al., 2015; Orchard-Webb et al., 2016), there is only limited conceptual work on how…”
Environmental decision making with conflicting social groups: A case study of the Lar rangeland in Iran (2010, background): “Environmental ecologists believe that neo-classical economic value theory cannot address the diversity of stakeholders’ motives towards environmental services (Blamey, 1998; Brouwer et al., 1999; Jacobs, 1997; Hill and Zammit, 2000; Sagoff, 1998; Spash, 2007; Tacconi, 1997).”
An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies (2012, background): “…time to think about the environmental good before undertaking the valuation exercise and thus address potential issues associated with the complexity and unfamiliarity of biodiversity (Macmillan et al., 2002) or embedding political economy concepts into valuation (Lo and Spash, 2012; Spash, 2007b).”
How Much is that Ecosystem in the Window? The One with the Bio-diverse Trail (2008, background): “Plural values including monetary considerations might be addressed through some forms of small group deliberative monetary valuation (Spash, 2008b, 2007c).”
Ecosystem services: Foundations, opportunities, and challenges for the forest products sector (2009, background): “An area of emerging importance is in education (Spash and Vatn, 2006) and the use of deliberative techniques (Howarth and Wilson, 2006; Spash, 2007) to reconcile some of these differences.”
The Shallow or the Deep Ecological Economics Movement (2013, background): “So the potential for interaction with and integration of aspects of American Pragmatism by social ecological economists remains an open question.”
Deliberative Monetary Valuation and the Evidence for a New Value Theory (2008, background): “Table 1, following Spash (2007), shows how the propositions can be split by the objective being either an individual or social value, and the means of articulating that value being based upon group or individual choice.”
A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services (2017, background): “Although this informed the subsequent discussion of a “fair price” (Spash, 2007; Kenter, in press, a) to charge for peatland restoration, it was not possible to disaggregate the value for recreation.”
Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values (2016, background): “Here consensus may not be necessary if the aim is to improve the capacity for greater cooperation in the presence of considerable disagreement about values (Lo, 2011, 2013; Spash, 2007).”
Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values (2012, background): “…(1998)) can be assessed using stated-values approaches (e.g., contingent valuation— Carson, 2000), but principle- and virtue-based values are better assessed using inferred-values approaches like choice experiments or deliberative valuation (e.g., Howarth and Wilson, 2006; Spash, 2007, 2008a).”
Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method (2015, background): “To the extent that such correlation exists, WTP estimates should be seen as an indication of political, social, or moral sentiments, rather than economic preferences, and therefore fail to satisfy the economic assumptions underlying the CVM and represent economic values (Lo and Spash, 2013; Spash, 2”
Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects (2012, unknown): “miliar goods (Gregory et al., 1993; Kahneman and Knetsch, 1992; Spash, 2007).”
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services (2016, unknown): “…that monetary valuation can reduce citizen values, including normative beliefs, principles and collective meanings into consumer preferences (Sagoff 1998; Spash 2007; Vatn 2009), and ignore ecological thresholds and distributional impacts (Wegner and Pascual 2011; Farley 2012; Kallis et al. 2013).”
Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts (2017, background): “Similarly, even economic valuation can be made more deliberative (Spash 2007).”