Deliberative Monetary Valuation Research Articles

Participant perceptions of different forms of deliberative monetary valuation: Comparing democratic monetary valuation and deliberative democratic monetary valuation in the context of regional marine planning

As conceptual and theoretical discussions on environmental valuation approaches have advanced there is growing interest in the impact that valuation has on decision making. The perceived legitimacy of the outputs of valuation studies is seen as one factor influencing their impact on policy decisions. One element of this is ensuring that participants of valuation processes see the results as legitimate and would be willing to accept decisions based on these findings. Here, we test the perceived legitimacy to participants of two approaches to deliberative monetary valuation, deliberated preferences and Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation, in the context of marine planning in the Clyde estuary in Scotland. We compare and contrast deliberated preference and deliberative democratic monetary valuation and track their emergence as responses to critiques of conventional stated preference approaches. We then present the results of our case study where we found that deliberative democratic monetary valuation produced valuations that were perceived as more legitimate that deliberated preference as the basis for decision making by those involved in the valuation process.

Exploring economic dimensions of social ecological crises: A reply to special issue papers

In this paper I consider various shifts in my research and understanding stimulated by seeking how to combat social ecological crises connected to modern economies. The discussion and critical reflections are structured around five papers that were submitted to Environmental Values in an open call to address my work. A common aspect is the move away from neoclassical environmental economics, and its reductionist monetary valuation, to a more realist theory and multiple methods. This relates to my work on environmental ethics, plural values, stated preference validity and deliberative monetary valuation. Expanding beyond the narrow confines of mainstream orthodoxy has involved exploring a range of other disciplines (e.g. applied philosophy, social psychology, human geography, political science, social anthropology, history of thought and philosophy of science) and learning from this literature to rethink economics and develop social ecological economics. A broad range of subjects are covered here, including: personal responsibility, social practice, psychology of the individual, participatory processes, value (intrinsic, instrumental and relational), Nature–society relationships and interdependencies, critical realism and the conduct of unifying interdisciplinary science. I end with a series of comments concerning the failings of orthodox economics and the conduct of scientific research for social ecological transformation.

Unequal participation in deliberative monetary valuation: A case study of ecological damage valuation caused by the reclamation in Jiaozhou Bay

Unequal participation in deliberative monetary valuation: A case study of ecological damage valuation caused by the reclamation in Jiaozhou Bay

Évaluation délibérative et prise de décision : une clarification conceptuelle

A voluminous literature addresses the weaknesses of standard stated preference methods used to value non-market environmental goods and services, such as contingent valuation and choice experiment. Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) has emerged as a prominent alternative to the standard versions of these methods. It combines deliberative institutions with preference elicitation. Despite an anchorage in an extensive philosophical literature on deliberative democracy, the theoretical foundations of DMV are underinvestigated. A noteworthy exception is Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2018)’s effort to use Sen’s philosophical views to elaborate such theoretical foundations. The present conceptual contribution pursues this theoretical effort by pointing out two issues left unanswered by the above contribution. The first issue is: how can one ascertain that deliberation has attained its goal in DMV and, more broadly, in decision-making? (We term this the deliberative credentials issue.) The second issue is the role that economists and consultants involved in the proceedings of deliberation are supposed to play. (We term this the role of the analyst issue.) In order to clarify the kind of investigations that DMV or any alternative method should implement to be unequivocal on these issues, we use a formal framework introduced by Cailloux and Meinard (2019), designed to capture the stance that an individual has on a given topic once she has participated in a deliberation: her “deliberated judgment”. This framework allows to identify empirical questions that DMV do not tackle whereas answering these questions would be necessary to clarify the stance that DMV takes on the deliberative credentials issue. When it comes to the role of the analyst issue, our framework advocates an active role of the practitioner in creating what we call models of Deliberated Judgments. This framework thereby helps to characterize the normative stance adopted when implementing a deliberative approach.

Economic and Ethical Motivations for Forest Restoration and Incentive Payments

Private forest owners are both the suppliers and consumers of forest ecosystem services which poses a unique challenge to using incentive-based strategies to encourage forest restoration. We used focus groups and deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) methods to understand the choices of forest owners in Mississippi and Florida. Participants acted as jurors and made judgements about what actions a hypothetical forest owner should make when offered compensation to enhance key ecosystem services. Fifteen major themes were identified via qualitative data analysis. Results support a proposed conceptual model that links perspectives toward forest management with the expression of cultural values and choice. Allocation of income to ecosystem improvements revealed that intentional forest owners seek to maximize utility through personal achievement benefits, rather than income generation alone. Findings have important implications for forest policy and program design by improving the design and efficiency of economic interventions.

Increasing the credibility and salience of valuation through deliberation: Lessons from the Global South

Valuation can be used for a wide range of purposes, including informing environmental decision-making, designing and evaluating policies, and acknowledging and raising awareness of the importance of the environment. A promising development in the field of environmental valuation that is receiving increasing attention is the hybridization of stated preference methods and deliberative approaches. Proponents claim that deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) can successfully address many of the limitations ascribed to more conventional monetary valuation approaches. However, DMV has scarcely been tested in contexts of the Global South thus far, where arguably, the benefits it offers may be most relevant. In this paper we study the applicability DMV on preference elicitation in a rural Indigenous community in Colombia. We find that DMV is superior to conventional stated preference approaches in terms of its capacity to elicit more considered, informed, and diverse values. Our results suggest that DMV offers learning opportunities for participants, the benefits of which are greater for those for whom conventional valuation exercises may seem too cognitively complex. We find that by the end of the deliberative workshop, participants were considering a wider range of preferences. We control for one of the main risks of DMV, which is the possibility of participants with a higher social status exercising a dominant role during the deliberative process, and do not find evidence of this being the case. Our results suggest that one of the main advantages of DMV is its capacity to capture a much broader set of values than conventional valuation approaches, including instrumental, relational and intrinsic values.

Can Deliberative Approaches Make the Difference in Groundwater Economics and Management? Some First Evidence

Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) has emerged as a means to address the shortcomings of conventional stated preference techniques in the context of cost - benefit analysis. Especially for environmental goods or services that are complex or less familiar to participants and the community’s understanding with respect to non-market valuation is generally poor, DMV may be beneficial. This paper endeavours to contribute to the literature by exploring, for the first time, the role of information sharing, deliberation and storytelling on respondents’ values, beliefs and perceptions about groundwater resources. For this purpose, participants in a contingent valuation (CV) survey were invited to attend deliberative workshops, held after two months from the CV survey. The results indicate that the deliberation process has the ability to change participants’ perceptions by revealing values that were previously implicit, by helping them overcome cognitive barriers and by exposing them to a more diverse set of knowledge, arguments and opinions through group discussions. Overall, there is strong evidence that deliberation approaches could lead participants to better-informed choices, and consequently, to more sustainable, robust, and socially acceptable policy pathways for groundwater resources.

The Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas

The Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas

协商货币评估法在生态系统服务价值评估中的应用

协商货币评估法在生态系统服务价值评估中的应用

Beyond Rationality, Towards Reasonableness: Enriching the Theoretical Foundation of Deliberative Monetary Valuation

Economic valuation is often deemed an important source of information for land-use decisions. Stated preference (SP) methods are a particularly potent class of economic valuation methods, but they are also particularly controversial. In response to accumulating criticism of SP, deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) has been proposed as an alternative approach and has gained considerable attention in recent years. However, being a combination of elements from two theories – neoclassical welfare economics and theory of deliberative democracy – it lacks a convincing, consistent theoretical foundation. In our paper, we propose some clarifying adjustments regarding rationality assumptions and aggregation issues by drawing upon the work of Amartya Sen. We find that many of his ideas lead to a harmonisation of DMV's theoretical foundations, e.g. meta-rankings of preferences, impartial spectator and the plurality of impartial reasons.

Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) and Democratic Valuation (DV): A Response to Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017)

Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017) comment on the DV approach which I proposed in an earlier issue. They conclude that DMV overcomes some flaws of conventional stated preference (SP) methods, addresses many of my concerns and at the same time avoids some of the problems generated by DV. Several of their comments are debatable. A closer look at DMV in comparison with DV and conventional SP methods shows that Bartkowski and Lienhoop's DMV approach addresses only one out of six major issues with conventional SP methods – the lack of opportunities for group discussion. My conclusion therefore remains unaffected: Due to the many technical issues with measuring individual willingness to pay (WTP), valuations based on majority voting principles are not only more transparent and more democratically legitimate than conventional SP or DMV. They may also produce superior proxies for aggregated individual WTP.

Going along with the crowd? The importance of group effects for environmental deliberative monetary valuation

Deliberation is expected to enhance the validity and/or the democratic status of stated preference methods. Those objectives are challenged by the potential presence of group effects. Deference to the information publicly announced by others and social pressures to conformity hinder people's ability to express reflective and independent preferences. Through a split sample contingent valuation survey, we tested whether participating in group discussion affects willingness to pay (WTP). We also test for the presence of group effects. Participants in group discussion stated a higher WTP, and we did not find evidence of group effects. These results are favorable to the deliberative project.

Social influences on expressed willingness to pay: results of a deliberative monetary valuation study in Colombia

Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) methods can support environmental decision making by enabling the exchange of arguments and information to produce more democratic outcomes. The product of a valuation may be an array of expressions of willingness to pay (WTP) by individuals or a collectively agreed monetary value. Concerns have been raised, however, as to whether this product is an outcome of thoughtful and independent decision-making or influenced by social pressures to conform. Our study examines this issue and addresses concerns about the use of DMV, based on a public deliberation of forest conservation in Colombia. We analyzed the impacts of social conformity on WTP under two different decision scenarios: individual and collective. The results suggest that the impacts of social conformity are greater when a collective decision is required. These findings indicate that tensions between the differing goals of DMV could undermine its democratic promise.

Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions

Valuation that focuses only on individual values evades the substantial collective and intersubjective meanings, significance and value from ecosystems. Shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems constitute a diffuse and interdisciplinary field of research, covering an area that links questions around value ontology, elicitation and aggregation with questions of participation, ethics, and social justice. Synthesising understanding from various contributions to this Special Issue of Ecosystem Services, and with a particular focus on deliberation and deliberative valuation, we discuss key findings and present 35 future research questions in eight topic areas: 1) the ontology of shared values; 2) the role of catalyst and conflict points; 3) shared values and cultural ecosystem services; 4) transcendental values; 5) the process and outcomes of deliberation; 6) deliberative monetary valuation; 7) value aggregation, meta-values and ‘rules of the game’; and 8) integrating valuation methods. The results of this Special Issue and these key questions can help develop a more extensive evidence base to mature the area and develop environmental valuation into a more pluralistic, comprehensive, robust, legitimate and effective way of safeguarding ecosystems and their services for the future.

The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling

Monetary valuation quantifies exchange values, but broader approaches are needed to understand the meaning of those monetary values and the shared, plural and cultural values that underpin them. In this study, we integrated deliberative monetary valuation, storytelling, subjective well-being and psychometric approaches to comprehensively elicit cultural ecosystem service values for proposed UK marine protected areas. We elicit and compare five valuation stages: individual values from an online survey; individual and group values following deliberation on information in workshops; and individual and group values following storytelling and a ‘transcendental values compass’ deliberation. Deliberated group values significantly differed from non-deliberated individual values, with reduced willingness to pay and increased convergence with subjective wellbeing; deliberated individual values fell between the two. Storytelling played an important role in revealing values that were previously implicit. Participants were more confident about values elicited in the workshops than the online survey and felt that deliberated values should be used in decision-making. The results of this study (albeit with a limited sample size) suggest that shared values may be a better reflection of welfare implications than non-deliberated individual values, while at the same time more reflective of participants' transcendental values: their broader life goals and principles.

Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation to implement the Ecosystem Approach

The potential for developing the participatory dimensions of the Ecosystem Approach are examined through the work of Habermas to guide the design of Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation (DDMV) and elicit social willingness to pay. DDMV is contrasted with Deliberated Preferences approaches, which are a deliberative adaptation of stated preference techniques and comprise almost all Deliberative Monetary Valuation studies so far. In a detailed case study where coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services were set within a broader societal context, DDMV was undertaken through three iterative workshops involving a single group of participants representing local residents and different interests across the public, private and third sectors. The use of DDMV generates insights into its potential for securing a socially sustainable route to environmental management: sustainable development that brings together values for ecosystem services with other social priorities, is more inclusive of diverse user needs and values, and is sensitive to issues of environmental justice. As well as highlighting the benefits and challenges that a more democratic deliberative valuation presents, we highlight the practical strengths and vulnerabilities of this approach and indicate directions for further methodological evolution of DDMV.

Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services

There is increasing recognition of the need to unite analytical and participatory methodologies to establish more comprehensive valuations of ecosystem services and move beyond individual conceptions of value. This research integrates a three-stage choice experiment with participatory systems modelling, participatory mapping and psychometric analysis in a coastal case study in Scotland. It aimed to explore contrasts between individual willingness to pay and shared values expressed as group-deliberated fair prices, how deliberation on social-ecological systems would impact on value formation, and how participatory mapping might elicit distinct values not reflected in the monetary valuation. Results indicated marked differences between individual and deliberated group values, with deliberated individual values falling between the two. The systems modelling intervention combined with explicit discussion of transcendental values (life goals and guiding principles) generated significant learning and helped to better reflect transcendental values in monetary values. The deliberations and fair price framing shifted participants towards a public policy perspective, balancing benefit trade-offs with questions of fairness and responsibility. The highly localised nature of many values expressed through participatory mapping suggests that many of these places-based values would have been under-recognised by monetary valuation alone.

Background inequality and differential participation in deliberative valuation: Lessons from small-group discussions on forest conservation in Colombia

Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) methods have been proposed as a more democratic alternative to traditional contingent valuation methods (CVM) for natural- resource decision making. These deliberative methods are subject to criticisms. One issue of concern is that the socio-economic inequalities among members of the deliberative group may severely impede communication and consequently distort deliberative outcomes. To examine such possibility we applied the deliberative methodology in a case study of forest conservation in Colombia. We found that those individuals who assumed social (environmental) leadership positions tended to dominate group discussion. Nevertheless, the variations in the capacity to engage in group deliberation were better explained by participants' personal characteristics than external constraints or group pressure. Also, there was little evidence that leadership and domination in group deliberation significantly influenced participants' stated WTP. We conclude that DMV is vulnerable to the background inequalities among group members. The democratic potential of deliberative methods should be critically examined in terms of the capacity to communicate effectively and equally.

Democracy and valuation: A reply to

This paper is a critical appraisal of Schläpfer's (2016) proposal of a Democratic Valuation (DV) methodology to value public goods. While we appreciate attempts to address the shortcomings of conventional stated preference techniques, we have some reservations regarding DV. Our paper critically reviews the following characteristics of the proposed methodology: i) referendum format as decision-making mechanism, ii) single-dimensionality in the description of the policy issue to be valued, and iii) preference formation through provision of detailed information. Finally, we ‘calibrate’ Democratic Valuation against another alternative to conventional stated preference approaches, namely Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV). We argue that DMV addresses many of Schläpfer's concerns regarding stated preference techniques and at the same time avoids some of the problems generated by DV.

Exploring group dynamics in deliberative choice experiments

Deliberative monetary valuation has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional stated preference studies of ecosystem services. It promises to give respondents a better basis for decision-making by exposing them to a more diverse set of knowledge, arguments and opinions through group discussion. However, under certain conditions, small groups may fail to effectively pool the individual knowledge of their members. This paper examines the impact of the initial distribution of individual preferences in discussion groups on the outcome of deliberative choice experiments. Drawing on a deliberative monetary valuation study of forest ecosystem services in West Saxony, Germany, it is shown that the initial preference distribution in groups influences both the diversity of arguments exchanged during group discussions and respondents' consideration of the costs of environmental policies. Furthermore, results indicate that respondents' post-discussion willingness-to-pay is affected by the initial preference distribution in groups, though these changes were not statistically significant. The choice certainty of respondents was found to remain largely unaffected. Overall, the empirical findings of this study provide preliminary evidence about the need to conduct future deliberative monetary valuation studies with groups with heterogeneous initial preferences as this may provide respondents with a more complete set of decision-relevant information.