Towards a fair, constructive and consistent criticism of all valuation languages: Comment on Kallis et al. (2013)

Elisabeth Gsottbauer, Ivana Logar and Jeroen van den Bergh

Ecological Economics, 2015, vol. 112, issue C, 164-169

Abstract: We provide critical notes to the paper by Kallis et al. (2013) on monetary valuation. We evaluate the four criteria they propose for assessing valuation studies. We argue that no clear distinction is made between monetary valuation and pricing instruments. The selected criteria are more relevant to assessing policy than monetary valuation. The examples provided are not representative of the diversity of valuation studies encountered in the literature. Moreover, no clear examples are provided of where valuation and associated cost–benefit analysis of environmental policy go wrong. We plea for a more fair, constructive and consistent criticism of all “valuation languages” and offer relevant issues for consideration.

Keywords: Commodification; Cost–benefit analysis; Environmental policy; Evaluation criteria; Monetary valuation; Valuation languages (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914003814
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:112:y:2015:i:c:p:164-169

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.014

Access Statistics for this article

Ecological Economics is currently edited by C. J. Cleveland

More articles in Ecological Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().