Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives

By C. Spash, A. Vatn. 2006

226 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a2e429cd9ef6ee6974db4745bd015066d57e054a

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. Alex Y. Lo
2. D. Coelho
3. T. Patterson
4. B. Hansjürgens
5. C. Spash
6. J. Spangenberg
7. H. Wittmer
8. T. Elmqvist

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Alex Y. Lo
2. T. Patterson
3. D. Coelho
4. B. Hansjürgens
5. C. Spash
6. Josef Settele
7. H. Wittmer
8. Joachim Maes

Citations in the corpus

• Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services § (2010, background): “Therefore some ecological economists call for careful use of economic methods, and even for giving up on monetisation of environmental goods and services (Common, 2007a; Spash and Vatn, 2006; Vatn and Bromley, 1994; O’Neill, 1997b).”
• Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective (2008, unknown): “…Goulder and Kennedy, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997; Bishop, 1999; Barbier, 2000; Chee, 2004; Dasgupta et al., 2000; Spash, 2000; O'Neill and Spash, 2000; Howarth and Farber, 2000; McCracken and Abza, 2001; Spash, 2002; Freeman, 2003; Pagiola et al., 2004; Farber et al., 2006; Spash and Vatn, 2006).”
• METHODS, TRENDS AND CONTROVERSIES IN CONTEMPORARY BENEFIT TRANSFER (2009, unknown): “Despite arguments that more sophisticated techniques are needed to improve benefit transfer (Bergstrom and DeCivita, 1999; Smith et al., 2002; Spash and Vatn, 2006), agency benefit–cost analyses are still dominated by unit value transfers (Iovanna and Griffiths, 2006).”
• 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.”
• Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search of a Democratic and Value Plural Approach to Environmental Policy (2013, background): “Increasingly, ecological economists have shown interest in adopting aspects of public deliberation in seeking alternatives to environmental CBA, stated preference methods and benefit transfer (Spash et al., 2005; Spash and Vatn, 2006; Söderbaum and Brown, 2010).”
• How Much is that Ecosystem in the Window? The One with the Bio-diverse Trail (2008, background): “Benefit transfer is then used to produce numbers without having to confront the inconvenience of addressing the general public (Spash and Vatn, 2006).”
• Mapping ecosystem services' values: current practice and future prospects. (2013, background): “For example, how values differ across space due to differences in institutions and attitudes (Kotchen and Reiling, 2000; Spash and Vatn, 2006; Pritchard et al., 2000), how different ESS are interlinked and how biodiversity contributes to ESS supply (Nicholson et al.”
• Social Ecological Economics: Understanding the Past to See the Future (2011, background): “…for Ecological Economics (ISEE) conference in 2006 that was not only disappointing, in offering little of substance specifically on the environment, but also finished up expressing support for the monistic global cost-benefit analysis of the report by Stern (2006) on human induced climate change.”
• Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change (2007, background): “Such concerns have led to calls for and exploration of alternative approaches (Martinez-Alier et al., 1998; Spash et al., 2005; Spash and Vatn, 2006; Stagl, 2007).”
• The Shallow or the Deep Ecological Economics Movement (2013, background): “Government agencies can take a much simpler approach and hire pragmatic ecological economists to add-up some money numbers, transferred out of spatial and temporal context, rather than getting into the real social and political complexities of ecosystem management and community decision processes (S”
• Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative (2010, background): “While the scholarly literature in conservation economics has focused to a large extent on the economic valuation of natural resources, and environmental valuation has become increasingly popular among policy makers, it has also been subject to criticism, and some have issued pleas for its cautious u”