Abstract
This paper describes an empiric study of aggregation and deliberation—used during citizens’ workshops—for the elicitation of collective preferences over 20 different ecosystem services (ESs) delivered by the Palavas coastal lagoons located on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea close to Montpellier (S. France). The impact of deliberation is apprehended by comparing the collectives preferences constructed with and without deliberation. The same aggregation rules were used before and after deliberation. We compared two different aggregation methods, i.e. Rapid Ecosystem Services Participatory Appraisal (RESPA) and Majority Judgement (MJ). RESPA had been specifically tested for ESs, while MJ evaluates the merit of each item, an ES in our case, in a predefined ordinal scale of judgment. The impact of deliberation was strongest for the RESPA method. This new information acquired from application of social choice theory is particularly useful for ecological economics studying ES, and more practically for the development of deliberative approaches for public policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Of course there are obstacles to the ‘good’ properties of a deliberation other than those associated with the aggregation of preferences. Actual deliberative processes can sometimes be affected by power relations that reproduce systems of privilege and inequality. Two types of indicators can be used to assess the quality of a deliberation process. The first relates to the balance of speaking times and the transparency and traceability of the debates. The second type of indicator is related to the diversity and representativeness of the participants (Howarth and Wilson 2006).
For example, an unstructured process might be dominated by the powerful participants, particularly if they are in agreement. In contrast, a facilitated process might amplify the voices of people in the minority, forcing engagement and social learning on matters of disagreement (Howarth and Wilson 2006).
References
Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values. Chapman and Hall, London
Balinski M, Laraki R (2007) A theory of measuring, electing, and ranking. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:8720–8725. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702634104
Balinski M, Laraki R (2010) Balinski M, Laraki R (2010) Majority judgment—measuring, ranking and electing. The MIT Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Balinski M, Laraki R (2014) Judge: don’t vote! Oper Res 62:483–511. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2014.1269
Balinski M, Laraki R (2017) Majority judgment vs. majority rule. Cah. du LAMSADE 377
Borda (de) JC (1781) Mémoires sur les Élections au Scrutin. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, pp. 657 à 665. Imprimerie royale, Paris https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k35800/f788.item.r=Borda
Cohen J (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: Hamlin A, Pettit P (ed) The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp.17–34
Condorcet (de) N (1785) Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. Paris, Imprimerie Royale
CRÉDOC (2021) Sensibilité à l’environnement, action publique et fiscalité environnementale: l’opinion des Français en 2021. Focus sur les aspirations vis-àvis de notre modèle de société
Davis R (1999) The web of politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
De Wit R, Rey-Valette H, Balavoine J, Ouisse V, Lifran R (2017) Restoration ecology of coastal lagoons: new methods for the prediction of ecological trajectories and economic valuation. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 27:137–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2601
De Wit R, Leruste A, Le Fur I, Sy MM, Bec B, Ouisse V, Derolez V, Rey-Valette H (2020) A multidisciplinary approach for restoration ecology of shallow coastal lagoons, a case study in South France. Front Ecol Evol 8:108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00108
Delli Carpini MX, Cook FL, Jacobs LR (2004) Public participation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annu Rev Polit Sci 7(1):315–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
Dendoncker N, Keune H, Jacobs S, Gómez-Baggethun E (2014) Inclusive ecosystem services valuation. In: Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Keune H (eds) Ecosystem services. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-419964-4.00001-9
Dewey J (1927) The public and its problems. Holt, New York
Dryzek JS, List C (2003) Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation. Br J Polit Sci 33:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123403000012
Elster J (ed) (1998) Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fishkin J, Mansbridge J (2017) Introduction. Daedalus 146(3):6–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/48563092
Gasparatos A (2010) Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. J Environ Manag 91(8):1613–1622
Habermas J (1990) Discourse ethics: notes on a program of philosophical justification, in moral consciousness and communicative action. Polity Press, Cambridge
Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. https://cices.eu/
Hare T (1857) The machinery of representation, 2nd edn. W. Maxwell Publisher, London
Hargittai E, Gallo J, Kane M (2007) Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice 134(1–2):67–86
Howarth RB, Wilson MA (2006) A theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: aggregation by mutual consent. Land Econ 82:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600632796
Iaryczower M, Shi X, Shum M (2018) Can words get in the way? The effect of deliberation in collective decision making. J Polit Econ 126:688–734
Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP (2001) Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecol Econ 36:237–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00226-3
Kenter JO, Bryce R, Christie M, Cooper N, Hockley N, Irvine KN, Fazey I, O’Brien L, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N, Raymond CM, Reed MS, Tett P, Watson V (2016a) Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst Serv 21:358–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006
Kenter JO, Jobstvogt N, Watson V, Irvine KN, Christie M, Bryce R (2016b) The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling. Ecosyst Serv 21:270–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.006
Lawrence E, Sides J, Farrell H (2010) Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation and polarization in American politics. Perspect Polit 8(1):141–157
Leruste A, Malet N, Munaron D, Derolez V, Hatey E, Collos Y, De Wit R, Bec B (2016) First steps of ecological restoration in Mediterranean lagoons: shifts in phytoplankton communities. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 180:190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2016.06.029
Lienhoop N, Bartkowski B, Hansjürgens B (2015) Informing biodiversity policy: the role of economic valuation, deliberative institutions and deliberative monetary valuation. Environ Sci Policy 54:522–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.007
Liquete C, Piroddi C, Drakou EG, Gurney L, Katsanevakis S, Charef A, Egoh B (2013) Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review. PLoS One 8, e67737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067737
Lo AY, Spash CL (2013) Deliberative monetary valuation: In search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy. J Econ Surv 27:768–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00718.x
Madani FA, Hosseini SHK, Kordnaeij A, Isfahani AM (2015) Intellectual capital: investigating the role of customer citizenship behavior and employee citizenship behavior in banking industry in Iran. Manag Adm Sci Rev 4(4):736–747
Mavrommati G, Borsuk ME, Howarth RB (2017) A novel deliberative multicriteria evaluation approach to ecosystem service valuation. Ecol Soc 22:art39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09105-220239
Mueller D (2003) Public choice III, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813771
Murphy MB, Mavrommati G, Mallampalli VR, Howarth RB, Borsuk ME (2017) Comparing group deliberation to other forms of preference aggregation in valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 22:art17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09519-220417
Narchi NE, Cornier S, Canu DM, Aguilar-Rosas LE, Bender MG, Jacquelin C, Thiba M, Moura GGM, De Wit R (2014) Marine ethnobiology a rather neglected area, which can provide an important contribution to ocean and coastal management. Ocean Coast Manag 89:117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.09.014
Navajas J, Niella T, Garbulsky G, Bahrami B, Sigman M (2018) Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. Nat Hum Behav 2(2):126–132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4
Parks S, Gowdy J (2013) What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay. Ecosyst Serv 3:e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.002
Randhir T, Shriver DM (2009) Deliberative valuation without prices: a multiattribute prioritization for watershed ecosystem management. Ecol Econ 68:3042–3051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.008
Rey-Valette H, Mathé S, Salles J-M (2017) An assessment method of ecosystem services based on stakeholders perceptions: the rapid ecosystem services participatory appraisal (RESPA). Eco Serv 28:311–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.002
Salles J, Figuieres C (2013) Current issues in ecosystem services valuation (ESV). In: European association of environmental and resource economists 20th annual conference, 26–29 June, p 1–22
Smith G (2003) Chapter 3: Deliberative democracy and green political theory. In: Deliberative democracy and the environment. Routledge, London
Spash CL (2007) Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol Econ 63:690–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.014
Sunstein C (2007) Group polarization and 12 angry men. Negot J 23:443–447
Sy MM, Rey-Valette H, Simier M, Pasqualini V, Figuières C, De Wit R (2018) Identifying consensus on coastal lagoons ecosystem services and conservation priorities for an effective decision making: a Q approach. Ecol Econ 154:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.018
Talpin J (2011) Retour sur la politisation des individus par la participation. Pour une approche pragmatique des effets de l’engagement participatif sur les acteurs. Communication à la Journée du GIS Participation d’étude sur les effets de la participation, 21 octobre 2011, Ecole d'Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
Weber M (2013) Economy and society two volume set, with a new foreword by Guenther Roth. University of California Press, Berkeley (posthumous Edition of 2013 edited by Roth, G. and Wittich, C.)
Wilhelm A (2000) Democracy in the digital age. Routledge, London
Young HP (1974) An axiomatization of Borda’s rule. J Econ Theory 9(43–52):1974
Acknowledgements
This study has been financed by the DRIIHM LabEx (ANR-11-LABX-0010_DRIIHM), “Device for Interdisciplinary Research on human-environments Interactions” within the framework of the Human-environment observatory “Mediterranean coastline. Special thanks are due to Nicole Lautredou and Mylène Farge for their help during the citizen workshops. We acknowledge the support of the municipalities of Lattes, Villeneuve- lès- Maguelone and Mireval for providing conference rooms for the workshops. The local managers of the former Syndicat Mixte des Etangs Littoraux (SIEL) and Ms. Nicole Plank (municipal council of Lattes) are thanked for their support and useful suggestions. We are most thankful to the 42 participants at the citizens’ workshops and particularly to those 31 who fully engaged in the deliberative process.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Special Issue of Social Choice and Welfare: Deliberation and Aggregation, guest editors: Olivier Roy and Mikael Cozic.
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Appendix 1
The list of the ecosystem services used in the study (Table 6).
1.2 Appendix 2
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sy, M.M., Figuières, C., Rey-Valette, H. et al. Valuation of ecosystem services and social choice: the impact of deliberation in the context of two different aggregation rules. Soc Choice Welf 63, 619–640 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-022-01421-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-022-01421-7