An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal

By A. Vatn. 2009

306 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cabe777af5ba01f9d3760ee90faafa0373a7f8f2

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

Citations in the corpus

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services (2016, unknown): “MCDA is also expected to provide a compatible methodological framework for deliberative valuation, which is considered helpful in addressing plural value dimensions related to common goods such as ecosystem services (Vatn 2009; Wegner and Pascual 2011).”
Coming Full Circle: Why Social and Institutional Dimensions Matter for the Circular Economy (2017, background): “continue to hinder the evolution of institutions, and accounting for externalities remains a challenge in practice (Vatn 2009).”
Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values (2016, background): “Thus, in the same way that the results of conventional valuation approaches should not be considered without regard to the institutional context from which they originated (Vatn, 2009), the outcomes of deliberation should always be considered alongside their institutional characteristics, including ”
Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: a decision tree approach (2017, background): “, 2017), theorises the process of methodological choice (Vatn, 2009), or analyses empirical evidence beyond OpenNESS (e.”
Combining performance-based and action-based payments to provide environmental goods under uncertainty (2013, background): “the range of hectares (4, 16, 64) considered by Wätzold et al. (2008), assuming log-normal errors.”
A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions (2016, background): “The choice of the types of values to elicit or the value language to use, the selection of social actors to engage in the process, the decision of which methodological tools and measurement units to use, or even the choice of which ecosystem services or benefits to include, are steps of the assessme”
Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search of a Democratic and Value Plural Approach to Environmental Policy (2013, background): “Another problem is the questionable assertion that public deliberation, being a political activity, is inherently conducive to value pluralism, because individuals are exposed to a wide range of viewpoints (Jacobs, 1997; Howarth and Wilson, 2006; Vatn, 2009).”
Mainstreaming ecosystem services through reformed European agricultural policies (2012, background): “The concrete form of these procedures needs to be case specific, and the following critical issues need to be addressed (Vatn 2009): Who should participate?”
Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach (2017, background): “as associated uncertainty), of opinions (also among experts), of actors’ perspectives (and stakes), and of decision making criteria [34 ,35,36].”
The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services : integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling (2016, background): “However, this focus ignores that the physical interconnectedness inherent to ecosystems generates a social inter-connectedness that challenges individual preferences as the most suitable vector for social choice (Vatn, 2009).”
The Deliberative Value Formation model (2016, unknown): “The institutional context As a ‘value articulating institution’ (Vatn, 2009), outcomes of valuation are influenced by the way issues, questions, values and options are framed: what issues and policy options are in and out of scope of the deliberation and decision-making context, what level of…”
Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder (2010, background): “Many thoughtful scholars writing on ecosystem services recognize the importance of the institutional context (Grieg-Gran, et al., 2005; Pagiola et al., 2005; Lant, Ruhl and Kraft, 2008; Vatn, 2009, 2010—this issue).”
Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool (2012, background): “Recent literature has shown that these tools exhibit the characteristics of value articulating institutions (Gasparatos, 2010; Stagl, 2007; TEEB, 2010; Vatn, 2009).”
Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions (2016, background): “, 2014); (2) multiple sets of values activated by different roles, contexts, and value-eliciting institutions (Sagoff, 1998; Vatn, 2009); (3) partially formed ‘proto-values’ that are adapted to contexts; or (4) not hold a priori values but form them through social interaction and expression (Irvine ”