Advertisement

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

  • Maria ChristantoniEmail author
  • Dimitris Damigos
Original Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Deliberative monetary valuation Storytelling Contingent valuation method Preference change Groundwater valuation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aanesen M, Armstrong C, Czajkowski M, Falk-Petersen J, Hanley N, Navrud S (2015) Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: preserving cold-water coral in Norway. Ecol Econ 112:53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Álvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N (2006) Improving the process of valuing non-market benefits: combining citizens' juries with choice modelling. Land Econ 82:465–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N, Barberan R, Lazaro A (2007) Choice modeling at the “market stall”: individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 60(4):743–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balderas-Torres A, MacMillan DC, Skutsch M, Lovett JC (2013) The valuation of forest carbon services by Mexican citizens: the case of Guadalajara City and La primavera biosphere reserve. Reg Environ Chang 13(3):661–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartkowski B, Lienhoop N (2018) Beyond rationality, towards reasonableness: enriching the theoretical foundation of deliberative monetary valuation. Ecol Econ 143:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartkowski B, Lienhoop N (2019) Deliberative monetary valuation. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414
  7. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Zdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman IJ, Burgess D, Hutchinson WG, Matthews DI (2008) Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manag 55:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blamey RK (1996) Citizens, consumers and contingent valuation: clarification and the expression of citizen values and issue-opinions. In: Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Luckert MK, Phillips WE, White WA (eds) Forestry, economics and the environment. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp 103–133Google Scholar
  10. Blamey RK, James RF, Smith R, Niemeyer SJ (2000) Citizens' juries and environmental value assessment. Citizens’ Juries For Environmental Management Report No. 1, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  11. Boithias L, Terrado M, Corominas L, Ziv G, Kumar V, Marqués M, Schuhmacher M, Acuña V (2015) Analysis of the uncertainty in the monetary valuation of ecosystem services - a case study at the river basin scale. Sci Total Environ 543(Pt A):683–690Google Scholar
  12. Brouwer R, Spaninks FA (1999) The validity of environmental benefits transfer: further empirical testing. Environ Resour Econ 14(1):95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brouwer R, Powe N, Turner K, Bateman IJ, Langford IH (1999) Public attitudes to contingent valuation and public consultation. Environmental Values 8:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown TC, Peterson GI, Tonn BE (1995) The values jury to aid natural resource decisions. Land Econ 71:250–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryce R, Irvine K, Church A, Fish R, Ranger S, Kenter JO (2016) Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 21:258–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bunse L, Rendon O, Luque S (2015) What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review. Ecosyst Serv 14:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carson RT (2004) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Carson RT (2011) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, Northampton, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Chapter 17 contingent valuation, handbook of environmental economics. M. Karl-Göran and Jeffrey, R. V., Elsevier. Volume 2:821–936Google Scholar
  20. Champ PA, Bishop RC (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ Resour Econ 19(4):383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Choe KA, Whittington D, Lauria DT (1996) The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Econ 72:107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Christantoni M, Damigos D (2018) Individual contributions, provision point mechanisms and project cost information effects on contingent values: findings from a field validity test. Sci Total Environ 624:628–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Christie M, Hanley N, Wright RE (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ 58(2):304–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clark J, Burgess J, Harrison CM (2000) I struggled with this money business: respondents’ perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 33:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cragg JG (1971) Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39:829–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Czajkowski M, Hanley N, LaRiviere J (2015) The effects of experience on preferences: theory and empirics for environmental public goods. Am J Agric Econ 97:333–351.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dietz T, Stern PC, Dan A (2009) How deliberation affects stated willingness to pay for mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions: an experiment. Land Econ 85(2):329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1986) Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci 1:54–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Elster J (1983) Sour grapes: studies in the subversion of rationality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Falk-Andersson J, Foley NS, Armstrong CW, van den Hove S, van Rensburg TM, Tinch R (2015) A deliberative approach to valuation and precautionary management of cold water corals in Norway. Maritime Studies 14(1).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-015-0023-z
  31. Freeman M (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values. Resources for the Future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Garrick DE, Hall JW, Dobson A, Damania R, Grafton RQ, Hope R, Hepburn C, Bark R, Boltz F, Stefano LD, O'Donnell E, Matthews N, Money A (2017) Valuing water for sustainable development. Science 358(6366):1003–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Garrod G, Willis KG (1999) Economic valuation of the environment: methods and case studies. Cheltenham; Northampton, Mass: Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  34. Gregory R, Slovic P (1997) A constructive approach to environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 21:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gregory R, Wellman K (2001) Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study. Ecol Econ 39:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1993) Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J Risk Uncertain 7:77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hansjürgens B (2004) Economic valuation through cost-benefit analysis – possibilities and limitations. Toxicology 205:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hermans C, Howarth RB, Noordewier TG, Erickson J (2008). Constructing preferences in structured group deliberative processes. In C Zografos, R B Howarth. (Eds.) Deliberative Ecological Economics (pp. 50–79). New Delhi: Oxford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  39. Holmes TP, Bergstrom JC, Huszar E, Kask SB, Orr F (2004) Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 49:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jacobs M (1997) Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions. In: Foster J (ed) Valuing Nature? Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. James RF Blamey RK (2005) Deliberation and economic valuation: national park management In: Getzner, M., Spash, C. L.and Stagl, S. (Eds.) Alternatives for Environmental Valuation. Routledge, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP (2001) Do focus groups and personal interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecol Econ 36(2):237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kenter JO (2016) Integrating deliberative choice experiments, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 21:291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kenter JO (2017) Deliberative monetary valuation. In: Spash CL (ed) Handbook of ecological economics: nature and society. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  45. Kenter J, Hyde T, Christie M, Fazey I (2011) The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem Services in Developing Countries: evidence from the Solomon Islands. Glob Environ Chang 21(2):505–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kenter JO, Reed MS, Irvine KN, O'Brien L, Brady E, Bryce R, Christie M, Church A, Cooper N, Davies A, Hockley N, Fazey I, Jobstvogt N, Molloy C, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N, Ryan M, Watson V (2014) UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on Phase, Work package report 6: shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Kenter JO, Jobstvogt N, Watson V, Irvine KN, Christie M, Bryce R (2016) The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling. Ecosystem Services 21:270–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kenyon W, Hanley N, Nevin C (2001) Citizens' juries: an aid to environmental valuation? Environmental Planning C: Government and Policy 19(4):557–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kenyon W, Nevin C, Hanley N (2003) Enhancing environmental decision-making using citizens' juries. Local Environ 8(2):221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Krueger RA (1994) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, London, p 255Google Scholar
  51. Krueger R.A, Casey MA (2000) (Third edition) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  52. Lienhoop N, Fischer A (2009) Can you be bothered? The role of participant motivation in the valuation of species conservation measures. Environmental Planning and Management 52(4):519–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lienhoop N, Volker M (2016) Preference refinement in deliberative choice experiments for ecosystem service valuation. Land Econ 92:555–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lienhoop N, Douglas C, MacMillan (2007) Contingent valuation: comparing participant performance in group-based approaches and personal interviews. Environmental Values 16(2):209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lienhoop N, Bartkowski B, Hansjürgens B (2015) Informing biodiversity policy: the role of economic valuation, deliberative institutions and deliberative monetary valuation. Environ Sci Pol 54:522–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lo AY, Spash CL (2012) Deliberative monetary valuation: in search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy. J Econ Surv 27:768–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lo AY, Spash CL (2013) Deliberative monetary valuation: in search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy. J Econ Surv 27(4):768–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Macmillan DC, Philip L, Hanley N, Alvarez-Farizo B (2002) Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches. Ecol Econ 43:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Macmillan DC, Hanley N, Lienhoop N (2006) Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine? Ecol Econ 60:299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mavrommati G, Borsuk ME, Howarth RB (2017) A novel deliberative multicriteria evaluation approach to ecosystem service valuation. Ecol Soc 22(2):39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McDaniels TL, Gregory R, Arvai J, Chuenpagde R (2003) Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 46:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington D.C.: Resources for the FutureGoogle Scholar
  63. Murphy MB, Mavrommati G, Mallampalli V R, Howarth RB, Borsuk ME (2017) Comparing group deliberation to other forms of preference aggregation in valuing ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 22(4). Available at:  https://doi.org/10.5751/7.ES-09519-220417
  64. Niemeyer S, Spash C (2001) Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19:567–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Niklitschek M, Leon J (1996) Combining intended demand and yes/no responses in the estimation of contingent valuation models. J Environ Econ Manag 31:387–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. O’Neill J (2001) Representing people, representing nature, representing the world. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19:483–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parks S, Gowdy J (2013) What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay. Ecosystem Services 3:e1–e10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pavlikakis GE, Tsihrintzis VA (2006) Perceptions and preferences of the local population in eastern Macedonia and Thrace national park in Greece. Landsc Urban Plan 77:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Schkade DA (1999) Measuring constructed preferences: towards a building code. J Risk Uncertain 19:243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pearce DW (1993) Economic values and the natural world Earthscan. LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Perman R, Ma Y, McGilvray Y, Common M (2003) Natural resource and environmental economics, third edn. Pearson Addison Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Philip LJ, MacMillan DC (2005) Exploring values, context and perceptions in contingent valuation studies: the CV market stall technique and willingness to pay for wildlife conservation. J Environ Plan Manag 48(2):257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ranger S, Kenter JO, Bryce R, Cumming G, Dapling T, Lawes E, Richardson P (2016) Forming shared values in conservation management: an interpretive deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices. Ecosystem Services 21:344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reed MS, Allen K, Attlee A, Dougill AJ, Evans KL, Kenter JO, Hoy J, McNab D, Stead SM, Twyman C, Scott AS, Smyth MA, Stringer LC, Whittingham MJ (2017) A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 43:92–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Robinson JJ, Clouston B, Suh J, Chaloupka M (2008) Are citizens' juries a useful tool for assessing environmental value? Environ Conserv 35(4):351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rupérez-Moreno C, Pérez-Sánchez J, Senent-Aparicio J, Flores-Asenjo M (2015) The economic value of conjoint local management in water resources: results from a contingent valuation in the Boquerón aquifer. The Science of the Total Environment, Elsevier 532:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sagoff M (1988) The economy of the earth: philosophy, law and the environment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  78. Sagoff M (1998) Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol Econ 24(2–3):213–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schaafsma M, van Beukering PJH, Oskolokaite I (2017) Combining focus group discussions and choice experiments for economic valuation of peatland restoration: a case study in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecosystem Services 27:150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schaafsma M, Bartkowski B, Lienhoop N (2018) Guidance for deliberative monetary valuation studies. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 12(2–3):267–323.  https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schkade DA, Payne JW (1994) How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manag 26(1):88–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schkade DA, Sunstein CR, Hastie R (2007) What happened on deliberation day? California Law Review 95(3):915–940Google Scholar
  83. Shapansky B, Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC (2008) Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences. Ecol Econ 65(3):626–635.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Söderholm P (2001) The deliberative approach in environmental valuation. Journal of Economic Issues 35(2):487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Solomon M (2006) Groupthink versus the wisdom of crowds: the social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. South J Philos 44(S1):28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Spash CL (2000) Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation. Ecol Econ 34(2):195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Spash CL (2001) Deliberative monetary valuation. Fifth Nordic environmental research conference. University of Aarhus, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  88. Spash CL (2007) Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol Econ 63(2007):690–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Spash CL (2008a) Deliberative monetary valuation and the evidence for a new value theory. Land Econ 84(3):469–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Spash CL (2008b) Contingent valuation design and data treatment: if you can’t shoot the messenger, change the message. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26(1):34–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sunstein CR (2002) The law of group polarization. J Polit Philos 10(2):175–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sunstein, CR (2005) Group judgments: statistical means, deliberation, and information markets. New York University Law Review 962. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=12287&context=journal_articles
  93. Svedsäter H (2003) Economic valuation of the environment: how citizens make sense of contingent valuation questions. Land Econ 79:122–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Szabo Z (2011) Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecol Econ 72:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Urama KC, Hodge I (2006) Participatory environmental education and willingness to pay for river basin management: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Land Econ 82(Nov.):542–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vargas A, Diaz D (2017) Going along with crowd? The importance of group effects for environmental deliberative monetary valuation. Cuadernos de Economıa 36:75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vatn A (2009) An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol Econ 68:2207–2215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Völker M, Lienhoop N (2016) Assessing group dynamics in deliberative choice experiments. Ecol Econ 123:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Walsh RG, Loomis JB, Gillman RA (1984) Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Econ 60:14–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Ward H (1999) Citizensʼ juries and valuing the environment: a proposal. Environmental Politics 8:75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wilson MA, Richard BH (2002) Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol Econ 41(3):431–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zhao J, Liu Q, Lin L, Lv H, Wang Y (2013) Assessing the comprehensive restoration of an urban river: an integrated application of contingent valuation in Shanghai, China. Sci Total Environ 458–460:517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensZografouGreece

Personalised recommendations