Choices without Prices without Apologies

By A. Vatn, D. W. Bromley. 1994

How researchers see this paper

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

1. Robert Costanza
2. Roy Brouwer
3. Alex Y. Lo
4. C. Spash
5. R. Muradian
6. E. Corbera
7. J. Gowdy
8. L. McCann

Citations in the corpus

• Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative (2010, background): “From a social or collective choice perspective, social norms and institutions are crucial for societal decision making [64].”
• Bringing Ecosystem Services into the Real World: An Operational Framework for Assessing the Economic Consequences of Losing Wild Nature (2011, background): “For all of these reasons there is validity in calling for societal choices, especially in the domain of environmental decision-making, to be made without recourse to valuation (Vatn and Bromley 1994) or with the results of a cost-benefit analysis being a single component in a lager body of evidence ”
• Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects (2012, unknown): “Critics contend that in such instances respondents may construct their preferences in relation to the format of the elicitation setting or " clues " provided by the survey instrument or simply be random (Gregory et al., 1993; Vatn and Bromley, 1994).”
• Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search of a Democratic and Value Plural Approach to Environmental Policy (2013, background): “…of environmental valuation as inadequate opportunities for expressing values and inappropriate attention to non-economic considerations, including social norms, rights and procedural fairness (Vatn and Bromley, 1994; Clark et al., 2000; Jorgensen et al., 2001; O’Neill, 2007; Spash et al., 2009).”
• Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services (2011, methodology): “The difficulty of separating entangled ecosystem functions into discrete exchangeable units explains the uncooperative nature of many ecosystem functions to become commodified (Vatn and Bromley, 1994).”
• Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values (2000, background): “1 See also Blamey et al. (1995), Vadnjal and O’Connor (1994), Vatn and Bromley (1994).”
• Soil “Ecosystem” Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground (2016, methodology): “To frame this analysis properly, it is useful to first recognize that uses of soils by human populations go back to the night of times, and that researchers acknowledged the multi-functionality of soils several decades before the notion of their “ecosystem services” ever surfaced.”
• Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism (2010, background): “On the one hand, it needs to be owned, including the right to trade, and, on the other, it needs to have boundaries, as without them there is no way a property right can be executed (Vatn and Bromley, 1994; Vatn, 2000).”
• Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization (2007, background): “They suggest that Pigovian taxes and subsidies alter initial endowments, redistribute wealth and income, and result in different equilibria which cannot be compared in Paretian terms (Calabresi, 1991; Dragun and O'Connor, 1993; Vatn and Bromley, 1994 ).”
• Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects (2000, background): “The question of what these values reflect and hence their potential use in different policy contexts is fundamental to the future social–political acceptability of such models (Vatn and Bromley, 1995).”
• 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): “While Australia’s National Water Initiative (Council of Australian Governments 2004) calls for water markets and defined property rights over water for ensuring water flows to its highest value use, institutional theory (Ostrom 1998; Ostrom et al. 1992; Vatn and Bromley 1995 ) and applied research ”
• 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).”
• A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services (2014, background): “It has been already reported (Vatn and Bromley, 1994; Jacobs, 1997; Martín-López et al., 2013) that the choice of the method to value ES can bias results.”
• Institutional ecological economics (2005, background): “Institutional critics have argued that such reasoning is illegitimate because it distinguishes allocative decisions from distributive ones although the two are inseparable—Pigovian taxes and subsidies are policy interventions that alter initial endowments and thus redistribute wealth and income (Cal”
• Where is the value in valuing pollination ecosystem services to agriculture (2015, unknown): “(Pearce, 2007; Vatn and Bromley, 1994).”