Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation

By M. Wilson, Richard B. Howarth. 2002

451 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/91d920566744057d2d631eb286110a83692a284c

How researchers see this paper

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

In Global and Planetary Change

1. E. Gómez‐Baggethun
2. Robert Costanza
3. R.W.J. de Groot
4. Stephen Polasky
5. T. Wrbka
6. A. Hermann
7. Sabine Schleifer
8. Kai Ma Chan

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. U. Pascual
2. G. Wegner
3. Alex Y. Lo
4. C. Spash
5. R.W.J. de Groot
6. E. Gómez‐Baggethun
7. R. Turner
8. Kai Ma Chan

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Alex Y. Lo
2. R. Turner
3. Kai Ma Chan
4. Mathieu Rouget
5. C. Spash
6. Richard M. Cowling
7. R.W.J. de Groot
8. J. Goldstein

Citations in the corpus

• The Concept of Ecosystem Services Regarding Landscape Research: A Review (2011, background): “However, economic valuation of ecosystem services has reached its limits (e.g. Heal, 2000; Farber et al., 2002; Wilson and Howarth, 2002; Chee, 2004; Hein et al., 2006).”
• Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: An agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin (2012, background): “Use of participatory processes also could better incorporate ethical considerations, issues of social justice, and notions of uncertainty and irreversibility into ecosystem service analysis (Wilson and Howarth, 2002).”
• Ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries (2007, background): “This brings us to the importance of involving stakeholders – especially local communities – in management, valuation and monitoring (Adamowicz and Beckley 1998; Wilson and Howarth 2002; Zambrana et al., this issue).”
• The Deliberative Value Formation model (2016, unknown): “…increasing, and there has been significant investigation of broader ethical and political 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…”
• 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].”
• THE MEANING OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY: EVIDENCE FROM A CONJOINT CHOICE SURVEY (2008, background): “The outcome of such experiment may be better informed and would take into account public interests (Sagoff, 1998; Spash and Hanley, 1995; Vatn, 2000; Wilson and Howarth, 2002).”
• Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values (2012, methodology): “Values can be held at the level of individuals or groups, and most valuation methods are clearly oriented towards one kind such that the other kind is suppressed (Brown, 1984; Wilson and Howarth, 2002).”
• Exploring and Evaluating Scenarios for a River Catchment in Northern Australia Using Scenario Development, Multi-criteria Analysis and a Deliberative Process as a Tool for Water Planning (2011, background): “There is demand for tools that can (a) effectively include the range of disciplinary, stakeholder and institutional components that impact on resource planning (see, for example, Wilson and Howarth 2002 ), including ecological and social complexity (Wittmer et al. 2006); (b) enable transparency (La”
• Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique (2011, background): “Several deliberative tools have been developed since the 1970s, including focus groups, citizens’ juries, consensus conferences and deliberative polls (Wilson and Howarth, 2002; Getzner et al., 2005).”