Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches

By D. Macmillan, L. Philip, N. Hanley, B. Álvarez-Farizo. 2002

195 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e2f4ccac04e5fa79c32042935ec6b0f976070f34

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. I. Fazey
3. Alex Y. Lo
4. Michael Christie
5. M. Reed
6. K. Irvine
7. Niels Jobstvogt
8. G. Atkinson

In Global and Planetary Change

1. J. Kenter
2. I. Fazey
3. Michael Christie
4. M. Reed
5. Alex Y. Lo
6. K. Irvine
7. Niels Jobstvogt
8. V. Watson

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. J. Kenter
2. Alex Y. Lo
3. C. Spash
4. Michael Christie
5. I. Fazey
6. M. Reed
7. T. Hyde
8. G. Atkinson

Citations in the corpus

• Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change (2007, background): “Indeed there is a rolehere for a moderator “to be proactive and encourage the discussion along appropriate lines, for example by countering any tendencies toward ‘strategising’ but without unduly influencing the WTP of participants for the project” (Macmillan et al., 2002: 57).”
• What are shared and social values of ecosystems (2015, background): “Participatory 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; S”
• Birds as tourism flagship species: a case study of tropical islands (2009, methodology): “Research by Bandara & Tisdell (2005) and MacMillan et al. (2002) suggests that the absolute number may be less important than current population trends and that more detailed information should be made available to respondents.”
• Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects (2007, methodology): “Survey methods which use citizen frames to elicit existence values (Blamey, 1995) or more deliberative forms of evaluation are not invalid but are different types of policy-relevant information (Wilson & Howarth, 2002; MacMillan et al, 2003 ).”
• The Deliberative Value Formation model (2016, unknown): “Here, by analogy, participants are given the opportunity to ‘browse’ and become familiar with the goods they are asked to value before stating their willingness to pay (Macmillan et al., 2002).”
• Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis (2008, background): “(47) had 52 people in their workshops, and Alvarez-Farizo et al.”
• 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”
• 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).”
• Deliberative Monetary Valuation and the Evidence for a New Value Theory (2008, background): “Macmillan et al. (2002) aim to produce an individual WTP for goose conservation in Scotland which has improved validity due to allowing more time for discussion and reflection.”
• Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search of a Democratic and Value Plural Approach to Environmental Policy (2013, methodology): “Typical arguments are the lack of time to reflect or engage in arbitrage (Macmillan et al., 2002, 2006; Robinson et al., 2009) and respondents’ inadequate cognitive capacity to understand the welfare trade-offs being requested under such circumstances (Gregory and Slovic, 1997; McDaniels et al.,…”
• Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland (2007, background): “Some researchers have used contingent valuation techniques to examine conservation 96 priorities amongst the public for goose conservation (Macmillan et al., 2002), or for various 97 management programmes for wild animals in Scotland (Philip and Macmillan, 2003).”