An extensive literature exists on environmental nonmarket valuation research. It appears that results from these studies should be useful inputs to decision-making about environmental policy or management. Here, we investigate the extent to which this occurs in practice in Australian environmental management bodies. Nonmarket valuation experts were surveyed about their studies that they believed to have influenced policy. Then, decision-makers in environmental bodies were interviewed about the level of influence nonmarket valuation has had on their decisions. We find that researchers' perceptions of the influence that nonmarket valuation has on decision-making are overly optimistic. Interviews with decision-makers suggest that nonmarket valuation is little used in decision-making. Indeed, the majority of them are unfamiliar with nonmarket valuation techniques. Nevertheless, once the concept was explained to them, many decision-makers believed it could benefit environmental policy. Researchers' perceptions of the reasons for low usage of nonmarket valuation are largely inaccurate. We suggest a range of strategies that economists can use to promote the use of nonmarket valuation in environmental policy and management decisions, including ways to improve communication and engagement with decision-makers, and strategies to increase the capacity for decision-makers to use nonmarket valuation results."> An extensive literature exists on environmental nonmarket valuation research. It appears that results from these studies should be useful inputs to decision-making about environmental policy or management. Here, we investigate the extent to which this occurs in practice in Australian environmental management bodies. Nonmarket valuation experts were surveyed about their studies that they believed to have influenced policy. Then, decision-makers in environmental bodies were interviewed about the level of influence nonmarket valuation has had on their decisions. We find that researchers' perceptions of the influence that nonmarket valuation has on decision-making are overly optimistic. Interviews with decision-makers suggest that nonmarket valuation is little used in decision-making. Indeed, the majority of them are unfamiliar with nonmarket valuation techniques. Nevertheless, once the concept was explained to them, many decision-makers believed it could benefit environmental policy. Researchers' perceptions of the reasons for low usage of nonmarket valuation are largely inaccurate. We suggest a range of strategies that economists can use to promote the use of nonmarket valuation in environmental policy and management decisions, including ways to improve communication and engagement with decision-makers, and strategies to increase the capacity for decision-makers to use nonmarket valuation results."> An extensive literature exists on environmental nonmarket valuation research. It appears that results from these studies should be useful ">
Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v59y2015i1p1-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-market valuation: usage and impacts in environmental policy and management in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Abbie A. Rogers
  • Marit E. Kragt
  • Fiona L. Gibson
  • Michael P. Burton
  • Elizabeth H. Petersen
  • David J. Pannell
Abstract
type="main" xml:id="ajar12031-abs-0001"> An extensive literature exists on environmental nonmarket valuation research. It appears that results from these studies should be useful inputs to decision-making about environmental policy or management. Here, we investigate the extent to which this occurs in practice in Australian environmental management bodies. Nonmarket valuation experts were surveyed about their studies that they believed to have influenced policy. Then, decision-makers in environmental bodies were interviewed about the level of influence nonmarket valuation has had on their decisions. We find that researchers' perceptions of the influence that nonmarket valuation has on decision-making are overly optimistic. Interviews with decision-makers suggest that nonmarket valuation is little used in decision-making. Indeed, the majority of them are unfamiliar with nonmarket valuation techniques. Nevertheless, once the concept was explained to them, many decision-makers believed it could benefit environmental policy. Researchers' perceptions of the reasons for low usage of nonmarket valuation are largely inaccurate. We suggest a range of strategies that economists can use to promote the use of nonmarket valuation in environmental policy and management decisions, including ways to improve communication and engagement with decision-makers, and strategies to increase the capacity for decision-makers to use nonmarket valuation results.

Suggested Citation

  • Abbie A. Rogers & Marit E. Kragt & Fiona L. Gibson & Michael P. Burton & Elizabeth H. Petersen & David J. Pannell, 2015. "Non-market valuation: usage and impacts in environmental policy and management in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:59:y:2015:i:1:p:1-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ajar.2015.59.issue-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John List, 2005. "Scientific Numerology, Preference Anomalies, and Environmental Policymaking," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 35-53, September.
    2. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-25.
    3. Jeff Bennett (ed.), 2011. "The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13490.
    4. Jeff Bennett, 1996. "The Contingent Valuation Method: A Post-Kakadu Assessment," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 3(2), pages 185-194.
    5. Alexandra Dehnhardt, 2013. "Decision-makers' attitudes towards economic valuation - a case study of German water management authorities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 201-221, July.
    6. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    7. Gowan, Charles & Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard, 2006. "The role of ecosystem valuation in environmental decision making: Hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the Elwha River," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 508-523, April.
    8. Driml, Sally M., 1997. "Bringing ecological economics out of the wilderness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 145-153, November.
    9. Carson, Richard T & Wilks, Leanne & Imber, David, 1994. "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 727-749, Supplemen.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nguyen, Minh Duc & Ancev, Tiho & Randall, Alan, 2020. "Forest governance and economic values of forest ecosystem services in Vietnam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Spencer-Cotton, Alaya & Navarro, Matt & Hamre, Nicole, 2023. "Public preferences for marine park design in Western Australia," Working Papers 339006, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    5. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Manero, Ana & Taylor, Kat & Nikolakis, William & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Marshall, Virginia & Spencer-Cotton, Alaya & Nguyen, Mai & Grafton, R. Quentin, 2022. "A systematic literature review of non-market valuation of Indigenous peoples’ values: Current knowledge, best-practice and framing questions for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    7. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    8. Pannell, David J. & Gibson, Fiona L., 2014. "Testing metrics to prioritise environmental projects," Working Papers 163211, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. David J. Pannell & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2021. "What Can Environmental Economists Learn from the COVID‐19 Experience?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 105-119, March.
    10. Marre, Jean-Baptiste & Thebaud, Olivier & Pascoe, Sean & Jennings, Sarah & Boncoeur, Jean & Coglan, Louisa, 2015. "The use of ecosystem services valuation in Australian coastal zone management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 117-124.
    11. Leddin, Clare & Morse-McNabb, Elizabeth & Smith, Kevin & Ho, Christie & Jacobs, Joseph, 2023. "How can improved farmer decisions and farm system impacts resulting from the use of digital forage measurement technologies on dairy farms be valued?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    12. Louisa Coglan & Sean Pascoe & Gabriela Scheufele, 2021. "Availability of Non-Market Values to Inform Decision-Making in Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture: An Audit and Gap Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Matthews, Yvonne, 2023. "A hybrid and hierarchical stated preference study of freshwater restoration in Aotearoa New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    14. Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard, 2019. "Does ecosystem valuation contribute to ecosystem decision making?: Evidence from hydropower licensing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1-8.
    15. Ram Prasad Acharya & Tek Narayan Maraseni & Geoff Cockfield, 2020. "An Ecosystem Services Valuation Research Framework for Policy Integration in Developing Countries: A Case Study from Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-15, October.
    16. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rogers, A. & Kragt, Marit Ellen & Gibson, F. & Pannell, David J. & Burton, Michael P. & Petersen, L., 2013. "Is non-market valuation used in environmental policy making?," Working Papers 156197, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    3. Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2005. "Australasian environmental economics: contributions, conflicts and ‘cop-outs’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 1-19.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'Dubious to Hopeless' Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    5. Laurans, Yann & Mermet, Laurent, 2014. "Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 98-105.
    6. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    8. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2014. "America's Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 17-37.
    9. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John C. & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2020. "Expert judgements and community values: preference heterogeneity for protecting river ecology in Western Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(2), April.
    11. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    12. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2015. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    13. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    14. Gáfaro, Margarita & Mantilla, Cesar, 2021. "Environmental valuation using bargaining games: an application to water," OSF Preprints tcfyb, Center for Open Science.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    17. Alhassan, Mustapha & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Schoengold, Karina, 2017. "Effects of Information Framing on Smallholder Irrigation Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Groundwater Protection: The Case of Vea Irrigation Scheme in Ghana," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    19. Pamela Wicker & John C. Whitehead & Bruce K. Johnson & Daniel S. Mason, 2016. "Willingness-To-Pay For Sporting Success Of Football Bundesliga Teams," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(3), pages 446-462, July.
    20. Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo & Maria Rita Pierleoni, 2018. "Assessing The Olympic Games: The Economic Impact And Beyond," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 649-682, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:59:y:2015:i:1:p:1-15. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.