Background inequality and differential participation in deliberative valuation: Lessons from small-group discussions on forest conservation in Colombia

被引:23
作者
Vargas, Andres [1 ]
Lo, Alex Y. [2 ]
Rohde, Nicholas [3 ]
Howes, Michael [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Norte, Dept Econ, Km 5 Via Puerto Colombia,Off 219-D, Barranquilla, Colombia
[2] Univ Hong Kong, Kadoorie Inst, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Griffith Univ, Griffith Business Sch, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, Qld 4222, Australia
[4] Griffith Univ, Urban Res Program, Griffith Sch Environm, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, Qld 4222, Australia
关键词
Deliberative monetary valuation; Exclusion; Group pressures; Legitimacy; MONETARY VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL-POLICY; AGGREGATION; PLURALISM; PAY; AID;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.009
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) methods have been proposed as a more democratic alternative to traditional contingent valuation methods (CVM) for natural- resource decision making. These deliberative methods are subject to criticisms. One issue of concern is that the socio-economic inequalities among members of the deliberative group may severely impede communication and consequently distort deliberative outcomes. To examine such possibility we applied the deliberative methodology in a case study of forest conservation in Colombia. We found that those individuals who assumed social (environmental) leadership positions tended to dominate group discussion. Nevertheless, the variations in the capacity to engage in group deliberation were better explained by participants' personal characteristics than external constraints or group pressure. Also, there was little evidence that leadership and domination in group deliberation significantly influenced participants' stated WTP. We conclude that DMV is vulnerable to the background inequalities among group members. The democratic potential of deliberative methods should be critically examined in terms of the capacity to communicate effectively and equally. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:104 / 111
页数:8
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1989, GOOD POLITY NORMATIV
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2012, The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications
[3]  
Bell R., 2002, SURV METHODOL, V28, P169
[4]  
BOHMANN J., 1997, Deliberative Democracy
[5]   Reconsidering environmental policy: Prescriptive consequentialism and volitional pragmatism [J].
Bromley, D .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2004, 28 (01) :73-99
[6]   THE VALUES JURY TO AID NATURAL-RESOURCE DECISIONS [J].
BROWN, TC ;
PETERSON, GL ;
TONN, BE .
LAND ECONOMICS, 1995, 71 (02) :250-260
[7]   How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment [J].
Dietz, Thomas ;
Stern, Paul C. ;
Dan, Amy .
LAND ECONOMICS, 2009, 85 (02) :329-347
[8]  
Dryzek J. S., 2000, DELIBERTIVE DEMOCRAC
[9]  
Garcia H., 2014, BOSQUE SECO TROPICAL
[10]  
Gutmann A., 2009, WHY DELIBERATIVE DEM