Integrating online deliberation into ecosystem service valuation.

Deliberation quality Ecosystem service assessment Focus group Non-marketable valuation Online communication Valuation methods

Journal

Journal of environmental management
ISSN: 1095-8630
Titre abrégé: J Environ Manage
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0401664

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 Dec 2023
Historique:
received: 04 05 2023
revised: 05 11 2023
accepted: 03 12 2023
medline: 11 12 2023
pubmed: 11 12 2023
entrez: 11 12 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Stated preference valuation of ecosystem services involves participants answering hypothetical questions to express preferences. Participants tend to respond to the hypothetical questions separately, without any deliberation (the process of considering and discussing within a group). However, a relatively recent development in deliberation research involves asking participants to state preferences via deliberation. Deliberation is historically conducted in-person but can now also be done online. This paper covers the strengths and limitations of integrating online deliberation into stated preference valuation, including: (1) comparison between stated preference valuation with and without deliberation, (2) comparison between in-person and online deliberation, and (3) comparison between online deliberation media, such as typing, video meetings, and voice calls. Conducting deliberation can broaden participants' understanding of the target ecosystem services and others' preferences. However, this requires participants' willingness to deliberate and increases time investment. Online deliberation has lower costs and travel restrictions and higher time efficiency and confidentiality of personal information than in-person deliberation. However, people with low abilities or willingness to use online media are disadvantaged. Differences in the online deliberation media may reduce or improve the inclusiveness, engagement, and openness of deliberations in ways that affect valuation results. We also provide suggestions for selecting deliberation media and mitigating deliberation bias derived from the choice of deliberation media. Further research should explore how to improve time efficiency and affordability of online deliberation, how to promote inclusiveness, engagement, and openness of online deliberation, and how different deliberation media affect deliberation quality and valuation results.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38081084
pii: S0301-4797(23)02584-7
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119796
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

119796

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest We declare that we have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Haojie Chen (H)

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Riverside, CA, 92507, USA. Electronic address: haojie.chen@usda.gov.

Robert Costanza (R)

Institute for Global Prosperity, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Ida Kubiszewski (I)

Institute for Global Prosperity, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Matthew R Sloggy (MR)

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service of the US Department of Agriculture, Riverside, CA, 92507, USA.

Luhua Wu (L)

School of Economics and Management, Tongren University, Tongren, 554300, China.

Tong Zhang (T)

Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China.

Classifications MeSH