IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deliberative Monetary Valuation and the Evidence for a New Value Theory


  • Clive L. Spash


Economists concerned with validity are combining stated-preference methods with participatory deliberation to address on-going criticism. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) uses formal methods of deliberation to express values for environmental change in monetary terms. However, the results have begun to define different realms of value, reflecting pluralism in public concern over environmental change. Reviewing empirical DMV studies evidences a range of issues regarded as external to economics and the validity of its methods, issues which are typically kept at arms length by most environmental economists namely, multiple values, incommensurability and lexicographic preferences, social justice, fairness, and non-human values.

Suggested Citation

  • Clive L. Spash, 2008. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation and the Evidence for a New Value Theory," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 469-488.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:3:p:469-488

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Kevin C. Urama & Ian Hodge, 2006. "Participatory Environmental Education and Willingness to Pay for River Basin Management: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(4), pages 542-561.
    2. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    3. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    4. Richard B. Howarth & Matthew A. Wilson, 2006. "A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 1-16.
    5. John O'Neill, 2001. "Representing People, Representing Nature, Representing the World," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 19(4), pages 483-500, August.
    6. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    7. Roy Brouwer & Neil Powe & R. Kerry Turner & Ian J. Bateman & Ian H. Langford, 1999. "Public Attitudes to Contingent Valuation and Public Consultation," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 8(3), pages 325-347, August.
    8. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    9. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
    10. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    11. Federico Aguilera-Klink & Juan Sánchez-García, 2002. "Social participation, institutional change, and land property in the building up of sustainability: a case study of land-use conflict in Tenerife (Canary Islands)," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 20(4), pages 593-612, August.
    12. Sarah Fleisher Trainor, 2006. "Realms of Value: Conflicting Natural Resource Values and Incommensurability," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 15(1), pages 3-29, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Toman Michael, 2014. "The need for multiple types of information to inform climate change assessment," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 469-485, December.
    2. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    3. Ito, Nobuyuki & Takeuchi, Kenji & Kuriyama, Koichi & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Mitani, Yohei, 2009. "The influence of decision-making rules on individual preferences for ecological restoration: Evidence from an experimental survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2426-2431, June.
    4. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 674-687.
    5. Szabó, Zoltán, 2011. "Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 37-44.
    6. 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.
    7. Ali DOUAI (GREThA UMR CNRS 5113) & Matthieu MONTALBAN (GREThA UMR CNRS 5113), 2009. "Institutions and the environment: the case for a historical political economy," Cahiers du GREThA 2009-12, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée.
    8. Vargas, Andrés & Lo, Alex Y. & Rohde, Nicholas & Howes, Michael, 2016. "Background inequality and differential participation in deliberative valuation: Lessons from small-group discussions on forest conservation in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 104-111.
    9. repec:eee:ecolec:v:137:y:2017:i:c:p:47-55 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. 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.
    11. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    12. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    13. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    14. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    15. Pröpper, Michael & Haupts, Felix, 2014. "The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-35.
    16. Kenter, Jasper O. & O'Brien, Liz & Hockley, Neal & Ravenscroft, Neil & Fazey, Ioan & Irvine, Katherine N. & Reed, Mark S. & Christie, Michael & Brady, Emily & Bryce, Rosalind & Church, Andrew & Cooper, 2015. "What are shared and social values of ecosystems?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 86-99.
    17. Scharin, Henrik & Ericsdotter, Siv & Elliott, Michael & Turner, R. Kerry & Niiranen, Susa & Blenckner, Thorsten & Hyytiäinen, Kari & Ahlvik, Lassi & Ahtiainen, Heini & Artell, Janne & Hasselström, Lin, 2016. "Processes for the sustainable stewardship of marine environments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 55-67.
    18. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    19. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:5:p:850-:d:99183 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects


    Access and download statistics


    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:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:3:p:469-488. 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: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.