Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) and democratic valuation (DV): a response to Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017)

F. Schläpfer

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.031

Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) and democratic valuation (DV): a response to Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017)

F. Schläpfer

Department of Business and Management

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017) comment on the DV approach which I proposed in an earlier issue. They conclude that DMV overcomes some flaws of conventional stated preference (SP) methods, addresses many of my concerns and at the same time avoids some of the problems generated by DV. Several of their comments are debatable. A closer look at DMV in comparison with DV and conventional SP methods shows that Bartkowski and Lienhoop's DMV approach addresses only one out of six major issues with conventional SP methods – the lack of opportunities for group discussion. My conclusion therefore remains unaffected: Due to the many technical issues with measuring individual willingness to pay (WTP), valuations based on majority voting principles are not only more transparent and more democratically legitimate than conventional SP or DMV. They may also produce superior proxies for aggregated individual WTP. © 2017

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	261-264
Number of pages	4
Journal	Ecol. Econ.
Volume	141
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.031
Publication status	Published - Nov 2017

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.031

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85021750368&doi=10.1016%2fj.ecolecon.2017.06.031&partnerID=40&md5=8ad9e7d0f72d79c55298cad6acfea4b8

Cite this

@article{2c769c58cd434496b9fb202b36de0f3e,

title = "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) and democratic valuation (DV): a response to Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017)",

abstract = "Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017) comment on the DV approach which I proposed in an earlier issue. They conclude that DMV overcomes some flaws of conventional stated preference (SP) methods, addresses many of my concerns and at the same time avoids some of the problems generated by DV. Several of their comments are debatable. A closer look at DMV in comparison with DV and conventional SP methods shows that Bartkowski and Lienhoop's DMV approach addresses only one out of six major issues with conventional SP methods – the lack of opportunities for group discussion. My conclusion therefore remains unaffected: Due to the many technical issues with measuring individual willingness to pay (WTP), valuations based on majority voting principles are not only more transparent and more democratically legitimate than conventional SP or DMV. They may also produce superior proxies for aggregated individual WTP. {\textcopyright} 2017",

author = "F. Schl{\"a}pfer",

note = "Cited By :1 Export Date: 7 July 2021 CODEN: ECECE",

year = "2017",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.031",

language = "English",

volume = "141",

pages = "261--264",

journal = "Ecol. Econ.",

issn = "0921-8009",

publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) and democratic valuation (DV): a response to Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017)

AU - Schläpfer, F.

N1 - Cited By :1 Export Date: 7 July 2021 CODEN: ECECE

PY - 2017/11

Y1 - 2017/11

N2 - Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017) comment on the DV approach which I proposed in an earlier issue. They conclude that DMV overcomes some flaws of conventional stated preference (SP) methods, addresses many of my concerns and at the same time avoids some of the problems generated by DV. Several of their comments are debatable. A closer look at DMV in comparison with DV and conventional SP methods shows that Bartkowski and Lienhoop's DMV approach addresses only one out of six major issues with conventional SP methods – the lack of opportunities for group discussion. My conclusion therefore remains unaffected: Due to the many technical issues with measuring individual willingness to pay (WTP), valuations based on majority voting principles are not only more transparent and more democratically legitimate than conventional SP or DMV. They may also produce superior proxies for aggregated individual WTP. © 2017

AB - Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017) comment on the DV approach which I proposed in an earlier issue. They conclude that DMV overcomes some flaws of conventional stated preference (SP) methods, addresses many of my concerns and at the same time avoids some of the problems generated by DV. Several of their comments are debatable. A closer look at DMV in comparison with DV and conventional SP methods shows that Bartkowski and Lienhoop's DMV approach addresses only one out of six major issues with conventional SP methods – the lack of opportunities for group discussion. My conclusion therefore remains unaffected: Due to the many technical issues with measuring individual willingness to pay (WTP), valuations based on majority voting principles are not only more transparent and more democratically legitimate than conventional SP or DMV. They may also produce superior proxies for aggregated individual WTP. © 2017

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.031

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.031

M3 - Article

SN - 0921-8009

VL - 141

SP - 261

EP - 264

JO - Ecol. Econ.

JF - Ecol. Econ.

ER -

Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) and democratic valuation (DV): a response to Bartkowski and Lienhoop (2017)

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this