IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation

  • Szabó, Zoltán
Registered author(s):

    This paper focuses on examining the validity of biodiversity valuation methodologies. The results of a group deliberation technique (deliberative monetary valuation) are compared to those derived from a contingent valuation (CV) survey using the same environmental topic. Evidence is here presented that DMV can address some of the limitations of CV; namely a prevalence for lexicographic preference ordering due to psychological reasons and the lack of a priori or well-formed preferences. Both of these methodological shortcomings can result in protest responses which decrease the external validity of results. It is common environmental valuation methodology practice to exclude protest responses from the analysis on the grounds that they are illegitimate choices, thus the sample and consequently the environmental valuation analysis may become less representative of the population. An advantage of the DMV methodology is that it was found to significantly reduce the rate of protest responses to less than half (from 29% to 13%). Furthermore, DMV significantly increased the proportion of positive bids but not the amounts contributed. In relation to preference formation issues, we suggest rethinking the current practice of the DMV method, and propose dedicating the entire initial discussion session to introducing the good outside of a valuation context.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 72 (2011)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 37-44

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:72:y:2011:i:c:p:37-44
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:72:y:2011:i:c:p:37-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.