Ecological Economics 72 (2011) 37–44

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /eco lecon

Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving thevalidity of biodiversity valuation

Zoltán SzabóCorvinus University of Budapest, Department of Environmental Economics and Technology, 1093, Fővám tér 8., Budapest, Hungary

E-mail address: szabo.zoltan@uni-corvinus.hu.

0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. Alldoi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.025

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 26 October 2010Received in revised form 21 September 2011Accepted 29 September 2011Available online 5 November 2011

Keywords:Biodiversity valuationDeliberative Monetary ValuationProtest responsesLexicographic preferencesUnformed preferencesAgriculture

This paper focuses on examining the validity of biodiversity valuation methodologies. The results of a groupdeliberation technique (deliberative monetary valuation) are compared to those derived from a contingentvaluation (CV) survey using the same environmental topic. Evidence is here presented that DMV can addresssome of the limitations of CV; namely a prevalence for lexicographic preference ordering due to psychologicalreasons and the lack of a priori orwell-formed preferences. Both of thesemethodological shortcomings can resultin protest responses which decrease the external validity of results. It is common environmental valuationmethodology practice to exclude protest responses from the analysis on the grounds that they are illegitimatechoices, thus the sample and consequently the environmental valuation analysismay become less representativeof the population. An advantage of the DMV methodology is that it was found to significantly reduce the rate ofprotest responses to less thanhalf (from29% to 13%). Furthermore, DMV significantly increased the proportion ofpositive bids but not the amounts contributed. In relation to preference formation issues, we suggest rethinkingthe current practice of the DMVmethod, and propose dedicating the entire initial discussion session to introduc-ing the good outside of a valuation context.

rights reserved.

© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In this paper we focus on addressing issues regarding the validity oftwo methodologies. In the first part of the paper the problems of usingthe Contingent Valuation (CV) method for evaluating complex andunfamiliar public goods such as biodiversity are discussed. Later wepresent the results of research carried out in Middle-Mezőföld regionof Hungary on valuing the impacts of agricultural activities on biodiver-sity. Although poor in biodiversity, Middle-Mezőföld is one of the best-endowed areas in Europe in terms of arable cultivation and is thereforeideal for assessing how people value the impacts of agriculture onbiodiversity.

In the literature, only a limited number of studies can be foundwhich deal with valuation of biodiversity in relation to agriculture.Most valuation studies addressing this topic employ the CV method.The main objectives of this paper are to contribute to the methodologyand to explore alternative approaches. Some of the deficiencies of themost widely-used method, CV, are highlighted and methods whichincrease the validity of valuation of a change in complex and unfamiliarpublic goods are proposed instead. In theory, CV is capable of estimatingthe total economic value of non-market goods, including the non-usevalue components of natural resources (Marjainé Szerényi, 2005). It isnoted, however, that in the case of biodiversity, the validity of themethod is problematic. In this paper a thorough critique of CV is not

attempted, given that extensive literature on this subject already exists(see, e.g. Clark et al., 2000; Gowdy and Erickson, 2005; Kahneman andKnetsch, 1992; Sagoff, 1998; Blamey and Common, 1999). Instead, CVmethodology is assessed in relation to biodiversity only, underscoringour research agenda. We focus only on those problematic elements forwhich our proposed methods may provide some solutions.

2. Some Deficiencies of the Contingent ValuationMethod in ValuingBiodiversity

2.1. Lexicographic Preferences

Lexicographic preference orderings may result in non-compensatorychoices. Lexicographic preferences may possibly derive from eco-centricattitudes/ethics. The refusal to trade-off natural resources is logicallyconsistent with the notion that nature has intrinsic value irrespective ofits utility function to humanity. Around one quarter to one third of typicalCV responses could be described as lexicographic (Blamey and Common,1999; Common et al., 1997; Spash andHanley, 1995; Stevens et al., 1991).

It is not only ethical commitments which may be a source of lexico-graphic preferences. Blamey and Common (1999) note that it is a recog-nised psychological phenomenon that when dealing with information-processing difficulties or with uncertainty as to the consequences ofchoice, people may adopt a rule-of-thumb strategy consistent withlexicographic preference orderings. Individuals with a lack of informa-tion or knowledgemay instead rely on lexicographic preferences, ratherthan making ill-defined trade-offs (Spash and Hanley, 1995).

38 Z. Szabó / Ecological Economics 72 (2011) 37–44

2.2. Information Provision and Knowledge

When valuing biodiversity, surveys address topics which are unusu-al and outside the boundaries of normal experience. For instance, manyindividuals are unsure about the meaning of the term biodiversity andthe implications of changes in biodiversity to themselves. With respectto scientific terminology, the general public's knowledge on biodiversi-ty can be characterised as weak (Christie et al., 2006; Defra, 2002;Getzner, 2005; Spash and Hanley, 1995).

It is worth considering the argument of Christie et al. (2006, p.305.)whereby “if one is unaware of the characteristics of a good, then it isunlikely that one has well-developed preferences for it which can beuncovered in a stated preference survey”. The authors found thatfocus group participants appeared to be capable of quickly understand-ing the concept of biodiversity. This finding has positive implications forvaluation methodologies that propose that people can constructenvironmental value (e.g. DMV, to be discussed later).

Some authors claim that the general public can nevertheless relateto the idea of biodiversity, even if they are unaware of the scientificdefinition (Buijs et al., 2008, Fischer and Young, 2007). Accordingly,people may be able to formulate social representations that enablethem to make sense of a scientific term such as biodiversity. Howeverwe believe that the evidence behind these two related papers is notsufficiently robust. It is still unclear how conclusions relevant to thegeneral public can be drawn from focus groups held with the participa-tion of special groupswith a clear interest in or attachment to nature. InFischer and Young (2007, p.273) the recruitment procedure consistedof posting advertisements seeking “volunteers to participate in agroup discussion on nature”. However, it can be predicted that theknowledge and attitude of mountaineers, tourists visiting nationalparks, foresters or birdwatchers (i.e. the primary groups canvassed inthe authors’ study) cannot be considered representative of the generalpublic. Thus the claim “public views … to express complex mentalconcepts” (ibid, p.280) appears to be unsupported. Besides reportingon the same focus groups, Buijs et al. (2008) include in their study addi-tional ones, using a total of 19 focus groups. It appears from the compo-sition of focus groups in Buijs et al. (2008) that most participants werealso more interested in the natural environment than might beexpected of the general public (e.g. conservationists). A more represen-tative samplingwas used by Hunter and Brehm (2003), who found thatalthough scientific knowledge was lacking, participants typicallydemonstrated some knowledge of local species. Regarding biodiversitythe authors suggest that lay people may express general concern butpossess little underlying knowledge.

In conclusion, concerning biodiversity valuation, we believe infor-mation, understanding and knowledge issues need to be addressed.

2.3. Protest Responses

CV practitioners are often criticised for how they treat protestresponses. Protest responses are defined as scenarios when an individ-ual rejects (protest against) some aspect of the valuation. There arevarious reasons for protesting. One of the manifestations of protestingin a hypothetical valuation survey is when an individual opts for zerowillingness to pay (WTP) to express unwillingness to trade-off therights of species to exist against some monetary compensation eventhough he/she may value the proposed environmental change. Spash(2006) presents reasons which could lead to protest responses, includ-ing dislike of the payment vehicle or institution or a lack of information.Macmillan et al. (2002, p.51) argue that “oversimplified informationcould generate protest or perhaps flippant responses”. Clark et al.(2000) emphasise that some respondents, in order to terminate theinterview quickly, may opt for a quick escape strategy such as ‘yea-saying’ or protesting. Furthermore, Meyerhoff and Liebe (2006)describe respondents acting strategically (i.e. strategic bidding). Besidesthese issues, protesting may arise when the respondent already

contributes financially or prefers alternative approaches to those prof-fered (Spash, 2006). Blamey and Common (1999) argue that a respon-sibility consideration may lead to protest responses as CV questionsmay implicitly suggest that the respondent has some responsibility toprotect the environment, thereby justifying a financial contribution.Using a typology of consumer psychology, Fischer and Hanley (2007)suggest that there may be a link between impulsive behaviour andprotest responses.

In a meta-analysis, Meyerhoff and Liebe (2010) found that, withrespect to nature/biodiversity conservation goods, the mean share ofprotesters in stated preference surveys was 21%, and with respect tospecies conservation, 19%. It is noteworthy that in both cases the maxi-mum share in the literature was found to be rather high; 45% and 35%,respectively.

The impact of excluding protest responses from stated preferencesurveys needs to be underscored. Researchers exclude protestresponses from the analysis on the grounds that they are illegitimatechoices (see Blamey and Common, 1999; Gelso and Peterson, 2005;Spash, 2006; Spash and Hanley, 1995). For instance Meyerhoff's(2005) or Jones et al.'s (2008) treatment of protesters (which excluded56% and 68% of the sample, respectively) clearly illustrates the scale ofthe problem. Spash (2006, p.608) argues that the practice results in a“systematic exclusion of respondents' opinions” and that censoringbiases CV samples. By excluding protest responses fromanalysis, reality,modelled by stated preference surveys, is thereby simplified, tailoredand restricted to what works in standard economic models (i.e. StatedPreference surveys), and is, ipso facto liable to be non-representative.

2.4. The Applicability of CV Surveys to Valuing Biodiversity: UnformedPreferences

There are indications that individuals have to form their values(preferences) during biodiversity valuation surveys, rather than simplyrelying on and eliciting existing preferences (see Macmillan et al.,2006). Spash (2006, 2007) stresses that the nature of preference forma-tion by individuals should guide how researchers attempt to methodo-logically elicit environmental values. James and Blamey (2005)highlight the limited time and information available for CV respondentstomake their choices and the lack of opportunity to seek clarification onany issues of concern. From a psychological perspective, Kumar andKumar (2007) emphasise that perceptions of ecosystems are quitedifferent depending on whether they are conceptualised by lay personsor conventional economists. Thefindings of Bateman et al. (2008) rejectthe notion that individuals' preferences are a priori well formed andreadily revealed through a single dichotomous choice question. Thenotion of the prevalence of unformed or poorly-formed preferencesfor non-marketed public goods appears to be well established in theliterature (see Lienhoop and MacMillan, 2007b; Sagoff, 1998; Spashand Hanley, 1995; Vatn and Bromley, 1994), yet the current authorbelieves it does not receive adequate attention.

The following two reasons thus are of critical relevance in the valu-ation of changes in biodiversity using the contingent valuationmethod:

➢ prevalence of lexicographic preference orderings;➢ lack of a priori well-formed (unformed) preferences.

In addition to ethical considerations, lexicographic answers mayserve as a decision-making heuristic when facing uncertainty, complex-ity or time pressure (psychological reasons). Unformed preferences canbe attributed to a lack of knowledge, understanding and information aswell as the complexity of the valuation scenario. Any of these two‘unwanted’ methodological factors may result in protest responses ina CV survey. Only protesting based on ethical grounds is considered tobe ‘justifiable’. Fig. 1 illustrates justifiable and methodological reasonsfor protesting when valuing changes in biodiversity.

In order to increase external validity it is important to avoid themethodological causes of protest responses. Therefore we suggest

39Z. Szabó / Ecological Economics 72 (2011) 37–44

reducing the influence of unwanted (methodological) factors by reducingthe amount of protest responses. Increased validity may result in thecommunity at large and the policy community better accepting valueestimates. Naturally, total elimination of protest responses would be amistake, as some such responses are in fact the result of lexicographicpreferences based on ethical considerations.

3. A Way Forward? Deliberative Monetary Valuation

A reviewof the literature on deliberativemonetary valuation (DMV)reveals that the characteristics of the methodology are variable(Álvarez-Farizo et al., 2007; Getzner et al., 2005; Macmillan et al.,2002; Sagoff, 1998, Spash 2007, 2008). Spash et al. (2005) mentioninadequacies in the traditional economic model of human behaviouras a driving force behind the emergence of the method. DMV combinesstated preference methods with deliberative techniques known frompolitical sciences. It takes a two-session approach with the aim ofdiscussing an issue in small groups through deliberation and valuation.Most biodiversity and ecosystem benefits are public goods that have noprice. DMV is thus a possible way to tackle this problem.

Although in the literature there is limited empirical analysis of DMV,the method, in theory, appears to formally address the problem of lackof information and knowledge, while also allowing for a forum wherepreferences can be formulated based upon detailed information and agroup discussion. It is hypothesised that group deliberation contributeson the one hand to tackling lack of understanding and information-processing difficulties and on the other hand to well-formed prefer-ences. Thus the rate of protest responses may be reduced, andunwanted methodological protesting may be avoided.

A literature review reveals the two major aims of DMV. Firstly, itmay increase the validity of stated preference methods. Secondly, itmay create a new value theory. In this paper we focus on the former.Current practice aims to allow for participants to draw on deliberation.In our view empirical studies reviewed by Spash (2008)may have doneso only in a narrow sense. In all those studies a monetary valuationquestionnaire was already conducted during the first session of thedeliberative process (see Álvarez-Farizo and Hanley, 2006; Kenyonand Hanley, 2005; Lienhoop and MacMillan, 2007a, 2007b; Macmillanet al., 2002; MacMillan et al., 2006; Urama and Hodge 2006). Moreover,relatively early on in the process, participants completed the goal of thestudy, i.e. were asked to make a monetary evaluation. Thus one mayspeculate whether the process satisfactorily served to introduce thegood and assist in the formation of preferences. MacMillan et al.(2006) and Lienhoop and MacMillan (2007b) went furthest in thisrespect and explored preference construction issues. Their deliberativeforum participants, however, discussed valuation scenarios only, which

Note: Reasons for ‘methodological’ based protests are in

Other reasons (e.g.payment vehicle,responsibilityconsideration)

Lexicogrpreferenc

Unformprefere

Protest responses

Fig. 1. Justifiable and methodological reasons for pr

could be viewed as a second step after a discussion on the good itself.In most of those studies the questionnaires were re-administered atthe second sessions (re-evaluation), so participants had the chance inthe interim to solidify preferences and revise their bids. An alternativeapproach is suggested.

The advantages of DMV include the time for reflection, the potentialfor information gathering and group deliberation. Deliberative mone-tary valuationmay be seen as a two step approach, with thefirst sessiondedicated to discussing the issues and deliberating, and the secondsession dedicated tomonetary valuation. Here lies a possibly importantdistinction between the current author's approach and the approachestaken for most studies in this field: in the first session participants arefree to discuss the issue (biodiversity, ecosystem services). Valuation(monetary) aspects enter only during the second session. It is not onlydiscussions during the first session, but also the time period whichelapses between the two sessions (which may be 1 week or severalweeks) which also contributes to reducing the uncertainty about themeaning of the good and thereby lead to preference formation. Thiscognitive process is ensured by instructing participants to keep a diarybetween the two sessions to record their thoughts, questions, etc.Rather than discussing the valuation scenario, the provision of a discus-sion forumprimarily serves the aimof tackling unformed preferences aswell as addressing problematicmethodological areas; i.e. discussing theissues (e.g. biodiversity as a good, forms of contributing) leading up tothe valuation task.

4. Methodology

The large number of deliberative forums used during the researchdescribed was designed to ensure comparability at a significant level.Overall 8 deliberative forums were held for residents of Middle-Mezőföld, Hungary. Participants were recruited for a ‘discussion onagriculture’. The number of participants varied between 5 and 13 andfollowed a semi-structured interview lasting around one and a halfhours. Discussions were facilitated by a professional moderator whoalso ensured neutrality. The purpose of the 8 deliberative forums withresidents was twofold. Besides being a qualitative assessment of directecosystem services (see Szabó, 2008), it was a monetary valuationwith the help of a CV questionnaire (DMV). The deliberative forumswere thus iterated in the manner of DMVs. The second session beganwith the completion of a questionnaire followed by consensus-seekingdeliberation (not reported here, see Szabó, 2008). Not all partic-ipants who participated in the first deliberative forum were able toattend the second session (DMV). Most residents who missed thesecond session were later contacted in order to have the questionnaireadministered. Overall, 90 people filled out the questionnaire.

Ethical reasons (e.g.right of species to exist)

Lack of knowledge,information orcomplexity of the topic

Psychological reasons(uncertainty, complexityor time pressure)

dicated in red and ‘justifiable’ protests in green.

aphices

ednces

otesting when valuing changes in biodiversity.

Table 1Comparison of the two samples (equality of means).

Variables Mean Independent-samples t-test

CV-only (N=152) Deliberative forum (N=90) t-value Sig. level (p)

Gender (1=male, 2=female) 1.47 1.57 1.498 0.135Size of household (persons) 3.24 3.14 −0.536 0.593Number of dependents (children) 0.99 0.8 −1.348 0.179Education (1=primary,… 4=collage, univ. degree) 2.59 2.73 1.032 0.303Income (1=bHUF 50.000, 2=50.000–100.000,…) 3.65 3.69 0.203 0.840Age (year) 40.46 47.96 3.540 0.000Farming income (1=yes, 2=no) 1.8 1.62 −2.851 0.005NEP score 53.55 54.77 1.234 0.219

40 Z. Szabó / Ecological Economics 72 (2011) 37–44

To test the influence of deliberation techniques, besides DMV, thesurveywas also administered to 152 respondents as a normal CV allow-ing for comparison of results with and without deliberative forums.

The CV builds on the survey used by Christie et al. (2006). For thequestionnaires two scenarios (‘programs’) were developed, both relatedto changes in agricultural technology. The first one implies a modestimprovement in biodiversity, while the second one aims at a healthyland use structure with up to a doubling of diversity. The two scenarioswere described, with the help of cards and pictures, to respondents anddetailed different impacts on the diversity of animals, plants and habitatsin the Middle-Mezőföld. A Switch from a conventional to environmentfriendly crop production program would result in a 10–20% increase inthe diversity of plant species. Healthier field margins would providemore food sources for birds. The Agro-environmental program wouldresult in up to a doubling of the diversity of plant species. Extended andhealthier field margins and loess-valleys would provide a lot more foodfor birds and habitats for insects, butterflies and mammals. The parame-ters of the scenarioswere outlined through a literature review and prima-ry field research (Szabó and Pál, 2007) and validated by experts.

No agreement or standard exists about the procedure to be used todistinguish genuine zero responses from protest zeros (Jorgensen andSyme, 2000; Meyerhoff and Liebe, 2006). Current practice identifiesprotesters by using debriefing questions. Studies take a variety ofapproaches, with differences in the number and content of questioninstruments (Meyerhoff and Liebe, 2010). Given the similarity of ourvaluation scenarios, we followed the practice of Christie et al. (2006)in our study. Protest responses were identified through use of a set ofdebriefing questions where respondents were asked to state thereasons behind their choice. To distinguish protest zeros from genuinezero responses, four instruments in the debrief questions were used.Reasons for protesting behaviour were identified as follows: proposalis not a good use of money; already contribute; not by increasing theprice of bread (i.e. dislike of payment vehicle); should be paid bythose who contribute to biodiversity loss. The responses indicatinggenuine zero bids were: no need to improve biodiversity; cannot affordto do this. In this research we do not examine exceedingly high bids(outliers), a positive form of protesting.

We carefully chose the methodology detailed above to avoid theproblems of valuing biodiversity by CV method, as outlined earlier.The split sample allows for the testing of the impact of group delibera-tion. Deliberative processes can place individuals in the role of repre-senting society, not just their own interests. Instead of the standardWTP, we used ‘fair price’ as an indication of ‘How much should societypay?’ Our interpretation of fair price is asking an individual in a groupsetting to make a decision as to what an average individual shouldpay for the good.1

1 Please indicate the maximum contribution of residents of Middle-Mezőföld over aperiod of 5 years to the improvement of the diversity of species and habitats of Middle-Mezőföld from the switch from conventional to environment friendly crop production/ Agro-Environmental Program. What do you think is the maximum increase in theprice of bread necessary that is acceptable/approvable?

During the focus group strong distrust of the usual payment vehicles(i.e. taxes, dedicated funds) was revealed and therefore an ‘increase inthe price of bread’ as payment vehicle was invented. The focus groupalso made it clear that it was inadvisable to use the term ‘biodiversity’because most participants were unfamiliar with it.

5. Analysis of Results (DMV and CV)

Out of the 242 responses, 90 people participated in deliberativeforums. It is difficult to recruit representative samples for deliberativeforums. According to Vicsek (2006), due to small sample sizes andnon-random recruitment procedures, results of deliberative forums(focus groups) cannot be generalised. However, for this research wededicated particular attention to having a non-biased recruitment pro-cedure and aimed for a relatively large sample size. Across the two sam-ples, based on an independent-sample t-test, no significant differencescan be found in terms of gender, size of household, number of depen-dents, education and household income (Table 1). The only demo-graphic variable where independence of sample means is significantlyrejected is age. The average age of deliberative forum participants was47.96 as opposed to the 40.46 of CV-only respondents (impacts of thisare discussed below).

Besides demographics, two more possible biases were considered.The first one concerns farming. Respondents with incomes derivedfrom farming were overrepresented in deliberative forums(t=−2,851, p=0.005). However we found no significant correlationbetween farming background and responses concerning whether tocontribute (p=0.09), nor fair price (pN0.2); in other words, resultsare not biased by differences in farming background.

The second possible bias concerns environmental attitudes andworldviews. The New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP), consisting of15 Likert-scale items, is a widely-used measure of pro-environmentalorientation. It is designed to measure endorsement of an ecologicalworldview (Dunlap et al., 2000). The average NEP score of CV-onlyrespondents was 53.55 and of deliberative forum participants 54.77.The means of those who participated in deliberative forums and thosewho did not do not differ significantly (p=0.219), signalling that nobias was created through participant recruitment (i.e. that the environ-mental outlooks of the two groups are alike).

After awarmupdiscussion on the themeof the natural environmentin general, the topic of the local diversity of species and habitats wasraised (regarding how participants perceived it in the present, pastand the future, and how important it was to them, and so on). Thenthe discussion was focused for an hour on ecosystem services (e.g.recreation, aesthetics, impact on culture). Finally, the issue of contribu-tions was raised in brief, firstly by asking participants if they wereprepared to pay for services underpinned by biodiversity, then turningto possible forms of contribution.

Regarding participants' knowledge or mental representations ofbiodiversity, our findings seem to reinforce the suggestions of Buijset al. (2008) and Fischer and Young (2007). Some participants invarious forums provided ample examples of perceived changes in thelocal flora and fauna, the disappearance of certain species and the less

Table 3Influence of deliberative forums on implied fair price.

Scenarios Mean (per year, in HUF)

CV-only(N=108)

Deliberativeforum (N=78)

Deliberative forum(weighted by age)

Switch from a conventionalto environment friendlycrop production program

4330 (€ 18) 6273 (€ 26.1) 7841 (€ 32.7)

Agro-environmentalprogram

6682 (€ 27.8) 9848 (€ 41) 13128 (€ 54.7)

41Z. Szabó / Ecological Economics 72 (2011) 37–44

frequent occurrences of other species, as well as the appearance of for-merly unknown species and the loss of habitats. Nevertheless,without aquantitative assessment, we have no information onwhether thewholesample can be characterised as having such richmental representations.

Knowledge and information was assumed to be an important factorbehind protesting; therefore after completing the valuation task aspecific question was utilised in the questionnaire. We found thatrespondents' indications of their own level of understanding of the topicof the diversity of species and habitats, measured on a five point Likert-scale, differed between CV-only and DMV participants (the means were4.01 and 4.17, respectively), although the difference was statisticallyinsignificant (p=0.185). Curiously, the most common answer in theCV-only sample was ‘understand well’, while in the deliberation sampleit was a less certain ‘somewhat understand’. This is despite the findingthat some DMV participants demonstrated in the discussions relativelyrich mental constructs of wildlife. Although the assumption was nottested, this result suggests that deliberation raised participants' aware-ness of the complexity of the topic, and besides gaining knowledge,participants also became aware of what they did not know.

Many participants in each forum claimed to have volunteered, orexpressed a willingness to volunteer in the future in activities benefitingwildlife (i.e. publicworks). Thismay be an indication of a positive attitudetowards improving the diversity of species and habitats. However, whenraising in the deliberation forums the topic of contributing to biodiversityimprovements, concerns were frequently raised and protest beliefsgenerally turned up. A frequent reason behind protest attitudes in generalwas lack of trust. Sceptical voices arose concerning the use of financialcontributions: “If we saw the point (not just another tax), we wouldsupport it”, or “If I was absolutely certain where my money would endup…” were often aired. Others in the group quickly agreed with suchstatements and a debate on the utility of contributions usually followed.In many forums it appeared that participants supported biodiversityimprovements in principle but refused to contribute financially due to alack of trust. In addition, a refusal to support increases in the price ofbread, responsibility considerations (the idea that polluters/farmersshould pay) or respondents having already contributed in other ways(e.g. buying nest boxes) turned up in a few instances. Nevertheless, thisdoes not necessarily mean that further reasons for protesting did notplay a part, as these may have been overshadowed by the more promi-nent ones, preventing them from surfacing in the discussions.

As Table 2 shows, we found that DMV significantly reduced theprevalence of protest bids (more than halved them; a 54% decrease).Protest bids amounted to 29% of CV-only responses and only 13% ofresponses from deliberative forum participants. As seen earlier, protestresponses usually comprise about up to half the responses, so ourCV-only result appears to conform to general practice. With respect tothe meta-analysis of Meyerhoff and Liebe (2010), the 13% of protestbidswe found in the DMV sample can be considered low. This result ap-pears to reinforce the findings of Wätzold et al. (2008) where use of acitizen jury (a deliberative approach) resulted in a very low share ofprotesting (3%).

It is in apparent contradiction though, that two-thirds of protest bidsin DMV were protests against the payment vehicle (an increase in theprice of bread). Many of them, however, also indicated other secondarymotivations for protesting. The payment vehicle is admittedly imperfect(although was better received than any other proposed payment

Table 2Protest responses.

Protest responses CV-only (N=152) Deliberative forum (N=90)

Protest payment vehicle 21 8Protest bid(incl. payment vehicle)

44 (29%) 12 (13%)

vehicle), so future research on alternative payment vehicles mayprovide additional grounds for research.

Evidence is thus hereby provided that the prevalence of protest re-sponsesmay be reduced and this reductionmay be due to DMV addres-sing someof the limitations of CV surveys.With the favourable outcomeof significantly reduced protest responses we believe the DMVmethod-ology used in this research improves the validity of monetary valuationof biodiversity. We therefore conclude that a crucial benefit of usingdeliberative methodology is its contribution to reducing protesting.

After excluding protest bids, 186 responses provided the basis forthe analysis ofmonetary results. Fair pricewas calculated using the stat-ed bid offered for an increase in theprice of bread and this price increasewas contrasted with respondent's actual stated spending on bread.Since this is a calculated indirect value, we prefer to call it implied fairprice. Deliberative forum respondents made significantly (pb0.01)higher bids for both programs offered (see Table 3). Among deliberativeforum participants the mean of the implied fair price of a modest im-provement in biodiversity was calculated at 6273 HUF/year/person.2

The more complex scenario (healthy land use with up to doubling ofdiversity) resulted in a mean implied fair price of 9848 HUF/year/person. These results are one and a half times more than the mean ofthe implied fair price of respondents who did not participate in deliber-ation forums (4330 HUF and 6682 HUF, respectively). Age negativelycorrelated with fair price in both programs (r=−0.22 and −0.26respectively) and the average age was higher amongst deliberativeforum participants. Without this sample bias the difference in fairprice bids as a result of deliberative forum participation would beeven larger (appr. double).

In the regression models R2-values were estimated at 0.119 for themodest improvement program and 0.144 for the more complex one.Variables significantly influencing implied fair prices were found to beage and participation in DMV (CV-only or DMV), while education andincome influenced only one of the programs. Education had a negativesign, curiously suggesting that the higher the level of education, thelower the willingness to pay. Pro NEP scores did not significantly influ-ence implied fair price (Table 4).

If only positive bidswere included in the regression analysis forWTP(i.e. protest and genuine zero bidswere excluded) participation in DMVwas no longer a significant predictor of fair price (p=0.163 and 0.118,respectively for the programs), while the significance level of theincome variable somewhat improved (0.045 and 0.006, respectively).Although deliberation increased the mean, the averageWTP of positivebidders was not significantly affected by DMV, whichwas confirmed bya rejected T-test for independence of sample means (p=0.51 and 0.46,respectively). This result indicates that the magnitude of contributionswas influenced by income and not by participation in deliberation.Moreover, apart from age, participation in deliberation was the only

2 During the research the exchange rate fluctuated around 240 HUF/Euro. Averagestated yearly net disposable income per head was 679104 HUF (2929 Euros).

3 Álvarez-Farizo and Hanley (2006) and Álvarez-Farizo et al. (2007) report on thesame surveys, but come to different conclusions about whether preferences changedsignificantly between the valuation sessions. The former finds that there was a signif-icant change in bids, while, according to the latter, the change between sessions wasinsignificant. We decided to go with the findings of the latter paper, as in the formerthe cost attributes of the relevant session 2 are reported to be insignificant.

Table 4Regression estimates of implied fair price.

Switch from a conventional to an environmentallyfriendly crop production program

Agro-environmental program

B Beta t Sig. B Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 3706 0.968 0.334 2457 0.423 0.673CV-only or DMV 3452 0.202 2.670 0.008 5391 0.205 2.746 0.007Gender 377 0.022 0.306 0.760 553 0.021 0.296 0.768Age (groups) −655 −0.247 −3.153 0.002 −1060 −0.259 −3.361 0.001Household size −181 −0.029 −0.241 0.810 −424 −0.044 −0.372 0.711Dependents 463 0.059 0.508 0.612 1013 0.084 0.732 0.465Education −1721 −0.214 −2.506 0.013 −1687 −0.136 −1.617 0.108Income 865 0.163 1.870 0.063 1809 0.221 2.575 0.011ProNEP (groups) 333 0.057 0.772 0.441 404 0.045 0.616 0.539R2 0.119 0.144F statistic (sig.) 2.944 (0.004) 3.670 (0.001)

42 Z. Szabó / Ecological Economics 72 (2011) 37–44

variable which influenced the decision whether or not to contribute(p=0.006). For this decision, neither income nor education wasfound to be significant (p=0.6 and 0.22, respectively). Although con-trolling for age sample bias improved significance level of the T-test,we found that bid levels of elder participants (i.e. above mean age)were especially unaffected by the deliberation treatment (p=0.37and 0.51, respectively) compared to those of younger participants(p=0.28 and 0.093, respectively). Further analysis was restricted bysample size.

These resultsmay be explained by the reduced number of protesterswho instead of protesting may have been more likely to make positivebids. Therefore the higher frequency of positive bidders, as a result ofDMV, led to higher mean implied fair prices.

6. Conclusion and Discussion

Valuing biodiversity is problematic in many aspects. The prevalenceof protest bids reduces the validity of Stated Preference Methods.Jorgensen and Syme (2000) found that methodological remedies toreducing the protesting may be difficult to enact. In this paper wehave presented findings from empirical research which suggest waysto solve some of these problems. Evidence is supplied that deliberativetechniques overcome some of the limitations of conventional CVsurveys.We believe the DMVmethodology used in this research tackledto some degree the problem prevalent in CV surveys of the lack of timeand information that is available to respondents. The method may alsohave contributed to well-formed preferences in the case of unfamiliarand complex environmental public goods (biodiversity). As a possibleresult of thesemodifications, we were able to reduce the rate of protestresponses by more than half (from 29% to 13%). DMV thus contributedto increasing the validity of results. By avoiding some unwanted(methodological) protesting, our interpretation of DMV may havereduced the prevalence of protest responses to close to the lowestpossible level, considering that some protest bids are the result ofexicographic preferences based on ethical considerations.

Additionally, this interpretation ofDMVpossibly increased the validityof results, as elicited monetary values were considered to be based oninformed preferences rather than through stimulating the formation ofpreferences. We provide evidence that participation in deliberativeforums produces a significantly different fair price for biodiversityimprovements. It is underscored that participation in the deliberationforum did not change environmental stances measured on the NEPscale. Due to the limitations of CV methods of valuation for complexand unfamiliar environmental goods such as biodiversity we thereforeconsider the results of DMV to be more valid than CV-only values.

The notion that deliberation treatment did not significantly increasethe average WTP of those who supported the proposals (i.e. positive

bidders) has relevance for economic theory. Ideally, WTP bids shouldnot be susceptible to elicitation procedures. That average WTP wasnot significantly increased by the deliberative treatment is encouragingfor standard economics. Social desirability and the information effectdid not seem to play a part. Further, the impact of deliberation treat-mentmay not be indifferent to the age of participants, with the averageWTP of older participants in particular appearing to be unaffected.

The favourable outcome concerning the reduction in the prevalenceof protest responses may suggest a rethinking of the general practice ofthe use of DMV. As we have seen, compared to our method, most DMVstudies restricted the opportunity for participants to acquire knowledgeand information regarding the good to discussions held before the firstvaluation process. To compensate for that, researchers re-administeredthe questionnaires at the second session to allow for consultation of theusual contacts (e.g. members of the family), forums or institutes in theinterim period, so participants may have a chance to state divergingvalues. However the studies appear to fail to achieve that latter aim,which is reflected in the findings that mean bids placed in the firstand the second sessions did not change significantly in any of theabove studies3, aswith Lienhoop and Fischer (2009). Given that averageWTPwas repeatedly not found to be significantly different between thetwo rounds, the role of the second valuation exercise itself may be ques-tioned. Further, it appears that with regard to knowledge, understand-ing and preference formation issues, current practice does not use thefull potential of DMV method.

A possible explanation for this unexpected finding is the anchoringeffect. Expressing a choice once may influence later bids. Further, theintroduction of the good was embedded in a discussion about monetaryvaluation issues and it is unclear how such a context influences knowl-edge gain and preference formation issues. In conclusion it appears thatthe first bids were decisive. This notion underscores the primary impor-tance of the treatment before the first valuation task is completed.Future research may investigate the role of a ‘neutral’ time period(i.e. when monetary issues are avoided) both in the discussions andbetween the sessions as an opportunity to gather information, reduceuncertainty, improve understanding and form preferences, and see, if inthe case of lack of a priori preferences, the current DMV practice may beimproved accordingly.

Brouwer et al. (1999) found in a CV survey that the understandingof the majority of participants of a WTP question would have been

43Z. Szabó / Ecological Economics 72 (2011) 37–44

improved if participants had been able to discuss the issues beforehand.Our results seem promising if protest responses are any indication of arespondent's lack of understanding of the questions. Macmillan et al.(2002) sought to assess uncertainty concerning WTP and found thatrespondents who had participated in deliberation forums were lesscertain about their bids. This finding apparently contrasts with Brou-wer's; however the authors seem to be relatively uncertain as to theconsequence of their results. As discussed above, we may speculatethat the topic of discussion (i.e. valuation scenarios) in Macmillan etal.'s research may have been inappropriate and insufficient for prefer-ence solidification (i.e. information provision with the manifest goal ofmonetary valuation) or a re-test may have made participants aware ofthe uncertainty of their initial bid.

Protesting varies between different types of environmental goods(Meyerhoff and Liebe, 2010). Often, protest beliefs are not independentof one another; moreover, protest reasons may vary across differenttypes of goods. Our deliberative method may not necessarily lead toreduced protesting in the case of other types of good where differentprotest beliefs are at work (biodiversity in our case vs. e.g. stormwaterpollution abatement in Jorgensen and Syme, 2000).

We suggest that DMVmay work well with respondents with differ-ent background knowledge and cognitive skills. In this context it isimportant to discuss how protesting was reduced in the DMV bothfrom the knowledge and information as well as the psychologicalperspective. Although our findings can only serve as a starting point,several untested assumptions may nevertheless be put forward.

It appears that instructions to keep a diary, thus regularly direct-ing the attention of participants to the topic, contributed to easingthe problem of insufficient information and knowledge. It did notnecessarily eliminate the problem. However, it may have reducedthe prevalence of negative attitudes by providing opportunities forparticipants to discuss the issue with others and seek additionalinformation.

The assumption that DMV participants may better understand thetopic of biodiversity raises the issue of how valuation scenarios shouldbe framed given the general public's lack of scientific knowledge onthe one hand and possibly rich mental representations on the otherhand. Deliberation may enable participants to bridge the gap by draw-ing on their mental constructs.

With regard to psychological factors, our evidence is rather limited. InDMV participants' attention is for a long period of time focused on thetopic and it is suggested that their decision strategiesmay be less habitua-lised or impulsive than in a CV interview context, and thus may inducemore thoughtful choices reflecting their altered cognitive hierarchy.Furthermore, a group context may create an environment in which peo-ple are more committed and willing to work with others (Ellemerset al., 2002). Also, the group process may be perceived as being fairer(e.g. acknowledge or equalise power relations, represent a wider rangeof stakeholders).

We may also speculate that deliberation contributed to reducinglack of trust and similar problems by providing a forum to discuss orsimply raise concerns, hear other voices and seek clarification. It mustbe noted that psychological reasons for protesting could not be voicedin the first session (respondents not having seen the questionnaireand the valuation scenario). The method used did not allow for testinga possible change in attitude before the deliberation forum and afterthe questionnaire was filled out.

The deliberative setting may induce participants to employ morecognitive effort, rather than achieve a satisficing outcome (Simon,1955) by employing as little cognitive effort as possible. Frör (2008)puts forward the hypothesis that intuitive reasoning facilitates the acti-vation of protest beliefs. Further studies using cognitive psychologicalmethods could test whether deliberation, by inducing more cognitiveeffort and relying less on intuitive reasoning, leads to a reduced levelof protesting. In contrast, deliberationmay also stress the lessmotivatedparticipants (Lienhoop and Fischer, 2009). Although we do not have

data on motivation, the lively discussions involving most of the partici-pants experienced in all groups indicate a high level of motivation.

Deliberation may also affect self-efficacy. It is hypothesised thatdeliberation forumparticipants are less likely to believe that they are in-capable of providing a justifiable response to the valuation task. Partic-ipating in a discussion, hearing another's perceptions and argumentsmay have an influence on the individual's perception of his/her owncapabilities of providing an adequate response, thereby resulting inincreased self-confidence in his/her abilities. This way the cognitiveburden of carrying out a complex valuation task may be indirectlyreduced. Such uncertainties offer fertile grounds for further research.

References

Álvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N., 2006. Improving the process of valuing non-market ben-efits: combining citizens' juries with choice modelling. Land Economics 82,465–478.

Álvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N., Barberán, R., Lázaro, A., 2007. Choice modeling at the“market stall”: individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation.Ecological Economics 60 (2007), 743–751.

Bateman, I.J., Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Matthews, D., 2008. Learning design contingentvaluation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55 (2), 127–141.

Blamey, R.K., Common, M.S., 1999. Valuation and ethics in environmental economics. In:van den Bergh, Jeroen (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 809–823.

Brouwer, R., Powe, N., Turner, R.K., Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J., 1999. Public attitudes tocontingent valuation and public consultation. Environmental Values 8, 325_/347.

Buijs, A., Fischer, A., Rink, D., Young, J., 2008. Looking beyond superficial knowledgegaps: understanding public representations of biological diversity. InternationalJournal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4, 65–80.

Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., Hyde, T., 2006. Valuing thediversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics 58 (2), 304–317.

Clark, J., Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., 2000. I struggled with this money business: respondents’perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 33, 45_/62.

Common, M., Reid, I., Blamey, R., 1997. Do existence values for cost benefit exist? Environ-mental and Resource Economics 9, 225–238.

DEFRA, 2002. Survey of Public Attitudes to Quality of Life and to the Environment—2001.DEFRA, London.

Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., 2000. Measuring endorsement of thenewecological paradigm: a revisedNEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 425–442.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., Doosje, B., 2002. Self and social identity. Annual Review ofPsychology 53, 161–186.

Fischer, A., Hanley, N., 2007. Analysing decision behaviour in stated preference surveys: aconsumer psychological approach. Ecological Economics 61, 303–314.

Fischer, A., Young, J., 2007. Understandingmental constructs of biodiversity: implications forbiodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation 136, 271–282.

Frör, O., 2008. Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: empirical evidence usingcognitive psychology. Ecological Economics 68, 570–581.

Gelso, B.R., Peterson, J.M., 2005. The influence of ethical attitudes on the demand forenvironmental recreation: incorporating lexicographic preferences. EcologicalEconomics 53, 35–45.

Getzner, M., 2005. A framework for valuing nature: regional biodiversity. In: Getzner, M.,Spash, C.L., Stagl, S. (Eds.), Alternatives for Environmental Valuation. Routledge, pp.23–50.

Alternatives for Environmental Valuation. 2005 In: Getzner, M., Spash, C.L., Stagl, S.(Eds.), Routledge, London, p. 298.

Gowdy, J., Erickson, J.D., 2005. The approach of ecological economics. Cambridge Journal ofEconomics 2005 (29), 207–222.

Hunter, L., Brehm, J., 2003. Qualitative insight into public knowledge of and concernwith biodiversity. Human Ecology 31, 309–320.

James, R.F., Blamey, R.K., 2005. Deliberation and economic valuation: national park man-agement. In: Getzner, M., Spash, C.L., Stagl, S. (Eds.), Alternatives for EnvironmentalValuation. Routledge, London, pp. 225–243.

Jones, N., Sophoulis, C.M., Malesios, C., 2008. Economic valuation of coastal water quality andprotest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece. The Journal of Socio-Economics 37,2478–2491.

Jorgensen, B., Syme, G., 2000. Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude towardpaying for storm water pollution abatement. Ecological Economics 33, 251–265.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., 1992. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (1), 57–70.

Kenyon, W., Hanley, N.D., 2005. Three approaches to valuing nature: forest floodplainrestoration. In: Getzner, M., Spash, C.L., Stagl, S. (Eds.), Alternatives for EnvironmentalValuation. Routledge, London, pp. 209–224.

Kumar, M., Kumar, P., 2007. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-culturalperspective. Ecological Economics 64 (2007), 808–819.

Lienhoop, N., Fischer, A., 2009. Can you be bothered? The role of participant motivation inthe valuation of species conservation measures. Journal of Environmental Planningand Management 52, 519–534.

Lienhoop, N., MacMillan, D.C., 2007a. Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTAand WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy24 (1), 289–295.

44 Z. Szabó / Ecological Economics 72 (2011) 37–44

Lienhoop, N., MacMillan, D.C., 2007b. Contingent valuation: comparing participant perfor-mance in group-based approaches and personal interviews. Environmental Values 16(2), 209–232.

MacMillan, D., Philip, L., Hanley, N., Alvarez-Farizo, B., 2002. Valuing non-market benefitsof wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches.Ecological Economics 43 (2002), 49–59.

Macmillan, D.C., Hanley, N., Lienhoop, N., 2006. Contingent valuation: environmentalpolling or preference engine? Ecological Economics 60 (1), 299–307.

Marjainé Szerényi, Zs., 2005. A feltételes értékelés alkalmazhatósága Magyarországon.Akadémiai Kiadó.

Meyerhoff, J., 2005. Non-use values and attitudes: wetlands threatened by climate change.In: Getzner, M., Spash, C.L., Stagl, S. (Eds.), Alternatives for Environmental Valuation.Routledge, London, pp. 51–68.

Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, L., 2006. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining theirmotivation. Ecological Economics 57, 583–594.

Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, L., 2010. Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: ameta-study. Ecological Economics 70, 366–374.

Sagoff, M., 1998. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics 24 (2–3), 213–230.

Simon, H.A., 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics69, 99–118.

Spash, C.L., 2006. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudi-nal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements NovemberLand Economics 82 (4), 602–622.

Spash, C.L., 2007. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economicand political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics 63(2007), 690–699.

Spash, C.L., 2008. Deliberativemonetary valuation and the evidence for a newvalue theoryAugust 2008 Land Economics 84 (3), 469–488.

Spash, C.L., Hanley, N., 1995. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation.Ecological Economics 12 (3), 191–208.

Spash, C.L., Stagl, S., Getzner, M., 2005. Exploring alternatives for environmental valuation.2005 In: Getzner, M., Spash, C.L., Stagl, S. (Eds.), alternatives for environmentalvaluation. Routledge, London, pp. 1–20.

Stevens, T.H., Echeverria, J., Glass, R., Hager, T., More, T., 1991. Measuring the existencevalue of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show? 1991 Land Economics 64(4), 390–400.

Szabó Z., 2008. Valuation of Biodiversity: Deliberative Monetary Valuation combined withqualitative assessments in the field of agriculture. In: Sustainability and CorporateResponsibility Accounting – measuring and managing business benefits. EMAN-EU2008 Conference Proceedings, Budapest, Corvinus University Budapest, Aula. pp.167.p.101-106.

Szabó, Z. and Pál, J, 2007. Agriculture Case Study in Hungary: Crops. In: Methods and data onenvironmental and health externalities: harmonising and sharing of operational esti-mates. Final Technical Report: Case Studies. MethodEx, FP6 Programme, European Com-mission, pp.299. p.469-528. http://www.methodex.org/methodex_deliverable_12b.pdf

Urama, K.C., Hodge, I., 2006. Participatory environmental education andwillingness to payfor river basin management: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Land Economics 82,542–561.

Vatn, A., Bromley, D.W., 1994. Choices without prices without apologies. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics Management 26, 129–148.

Vicsek, L., 2006. Fókuszcsoport, Osiris Kiadó. Budapest, p. 401.Wätzold, F., Lienhoop, N., Drechsler,M., Settele, J., 2008. Estimating optimal conservation in

the context of agri-environmental schemes. Ecological Economics 68 (1–2), 295–305.