Integrating online deliberation into ecosystem service valuation

Haojie Chen; Robert Costanza; Ida Kubiszewski; Matthew R Sloggy; Luhua Wu; Tong Zhang

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119796

Integrating online deliberation into ecosystem service valuation

J Environ Manage. 2024 Feb:351:119796. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119796. Epub 2023 Dec 10.

Authors

Haojie Chen¹, Robert Costanza², Ida Kubiszewski², Matthew R Sloggy³, Luhua Wu⁴, Tong Zhang⁵

Affiliations

¹ Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Riverside, CA, 92507, USA. Electronic address: haojie.chen@usda.gov.
² Institute for Global Prosperity, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
³ Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service of the US Department of Agriculture, Riverside, CA, 92507, USA.
⁴ School of Economics and Management, Tongren University, Tongren, 554300, China.
⁵ Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China.

PMID: 38081084
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119796

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Deliberation quality; Ecosystem service assessment; Focus group; Non-marketable valuation; Online communication; Valuation methods.

MeSH terms

Costs and Cost Analysis
Ecosystem*