A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent

By Richard B. Howarth, M. Wilson. Land Economics, 2006

176 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6937ba46addbaa1b2fbe45681a3962fb25b3e640

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

1. J. Kenter
2. C. Spash
3. Michael Christie
4. I. Fazey
5. K. Irvine
6. Alex Y. Lo
7. M. Reed
8. Christopher M. Raymond

In General Decision Sciences

1. U. Pascual
2. G. Wegner
3. C. Spash
4. Sarah Parks
5. A. Vatn
6. J. Kenter
7. M. Ryan
8. Michael Christie

In Safety Research

1. C. Spash
2. Alex Y. Lo
3. J. Kenter
4. I. Fazey
5. Michael Christie
6. A. Vatn
7. J. Gowdy
8. U. Pascual

Citations in the corpus

• Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique (2011, methodology): “These notions are rejected by more articulated political theories that define democracy as ‘deliberative governance’ with the ‘consent of citizens’ (Howarth and Wilson, 2006), and the social goal as the creation of opportunities for individuals to identify and pursue a broader set of capabilities…”
• An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal (2009, methodology): “pay as emphasized by Howarth and Wilson (2006) is more consistent than retreating to pure”
• What are shared and social values of ecosystems (2015, background): “…and cultural values in relation to the different components of TEV, as well as rights, duties and virtues that are extrinsic to the TEV framework (Howarth and Wilson, 2006), albeit on the condition that the process is consciously designed and facilitated to mitigate potential social biases…”
• Multifunctionality of Agriculture:A Review of Definitions, Evidence and Instruments (2007, background): “Although often criticised (Kahneman and Knetsch, 1992; Jacobs, 1997; Spash, 2000, 2002; Kumar and Kumar, 2004; Zhang and Li, 2005; Howarth and Wilson, 2006) the social valuation method results are often the only ones existing.”
• Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda (2012, background): “The combination of valid and intuitively accessible representations of environmental options with participatory deliberative decision methods (135), including citizen juries (136, 137), value construction”
• Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions (2016, background): “DDMV studies such as Orchard-Webb et al. (2016, in this issue) can ‘aggregate by mutual consent’ (Howarth and Wilson, 2006), while cost-benefit analysis (CBA) usually applies the Kaldor-Hicks criterion: maximise the net monetary value of willingness to pay/accept across all individuals, regardless…”
• 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.”
• What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay (2013, background): “Some progress along this front has been made in the area of deliberative valuation which involves a group of selected persons who explore the values that should guide social decision-making through a process of reasoned discourse (Howarth and Wilson, 2006; O’Hara, 2006).”
• Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change (2007, background): “Yet advocates of DMV, on the basis of theory, go beyond the individual expressing values in a group setting and discuss DMV as a means of obtaining group values.”
• Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search of a Democratic and Value Plural Approach to Environmental Policy (2013, background): “…DMV follows on from this tradition by giving credence to legitimacy issues, civic engagement and social learning (Brown et al., 1995; Jacobs, 1997; Sagoff, 1998; Ward, 1999; Niemeyer and Spash, 2001; Wilson and Howarth, 2002; James and Blamey, 2005; Howarth and Wilson, 2006; Spash, 2007, 2008a).”
• Environmental decision making with conflicting social groups: A case study of the Lar rangeland in Iran (2010, background): “Consequently, there is a need for multi-objective rangeland planning and decision aiding in natural resources management (Howarth and Wilson, 2006; Laukkanen et al., 2002; Laukkanen et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2008; Munda, 2006; Prato, 1999).”
• 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).”