IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/col/000093/015067.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Abstract

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 ***** La valoración deliberativa ha sido propuesta para mejorar la validez y el estatus democrático de los métodos de preferencias declaradas. La presencia de efectos grupales pone en duda la realización de estos objetivos. Falencias informativas y presiones sociales dificultan la expresión autónoma de preferencias. Se aplicó una encuesta de valoración contingente siguiendo un procedimiento cuasi-experimental con el propósito de estimar el efecto de la deliberación en la DAP y detectar la presencia de efectos grupales. Se observó una mayor DAP para los participantes en deliberación, la cual no estuvo acompanada de efectos grupales. Estos resultados son favorables a la deliberación.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrés Vargas & David Diaz, 2017. "Going along with the crowd? The importance of group effects for environmental deliberative monetary valuation," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, vol. 36(70), pages 75-94, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000093:015067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.fce.unal.edu.co/media/files/documentos/Cuadernos/70/finales/v36n70a04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dietz & Paul C. Stern & Amy Dan, 2009. "How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 329-347.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    2. repec:sae:envval:v:26:y:2017:i:2:p:157-176 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos & Plumecocq, Gaël, 2015. "Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 86-96.
    4. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    5. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    6. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    7. Jacob Ainscough & Jasper O. Kenter & Elaine Azzopardi & A. Meriwether W. Wilson, 2024. "Participant perceptions of different forms of deliberative monetary valuation: Comparing democratic monetary valuation and deliberative democratic monetary valuation in the context of regional marine ," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(2), pages 189-215, April.
    8. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    10. Meinard, Yves & Remy, Alice & Schmid, Bernhard, 2017. "Measuring Impartial Preference for Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 45-54.
    11. Matthew R. Sanderson & Jason S. Bergtold & Jessica L. Heier Stamm & Marcellus M. Caldas & Steven M. Ramsey & Joseph Aistrup, 2018. "Climate change beliefs in an agricultural context: what is the role of values held by farming and non-farming groups?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 259-272, October.
    12. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    13. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    14. Christos Zografos & Richard B. Howarth, 2010. "Deliberative Ecological Economics for Sustainability Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(11), pages 1-19, October.
    15. Völker, Marc & Lienhoop, Nele, 2016. "Exploring group dynamics in deliberative choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 57-67.
    16. Solomon Geleta & John Janmaat & John Loomis & Stephen Davies, 2018. "Valuing Environmental Public Goods: Deliberative Citizen Juries as a Non-Rational Persuasion Method," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(3), pages 135-135, May.
    17. Kaplowitz, Stan A. & McCright, Aaron M., 2015. "Effects of policy characteristics and justifications on acceptance of a gasoline tax increase," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 370-381.
    18. Carmelo J. León & Jorge E. Araña, 2012. "The Dynamics of Preference Elicitation after an Environmental Disaster: Stability and Emotional Load," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 362-381.
    19. Felix Schläpfer, 2021. "Inadequate Standards in the Valuation of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services: Why Economists, Environmental Scientists and Policymakers Should Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    20. Pankaj Koirala & Raja Rajendra Timilsina & Koji Kotani, 2021. "Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, July.
    21. Lienhoop, Nele & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2018. "Involving multiple actors in ecosystem service governance: Exploring the role of stated preference valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 181-188.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Deliberative monetary valuation; social conformity; public participation; willingness to pay.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000093:015067. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Facultad de Ciencias Economicas Unal (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/funalco.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.