TY - JOUR
T1 - Towards a fair, constructive and consistent criticism of all valuation languages: Comment on Kallis et al. (2013)
AU - Gsottbauer, E.
AU - Logar, I.
AU - van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.014
DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.014
M3 - Article
SN - 0921-8009
VL - 112
SP - 164
EP - 169
JO - Ecological Economics
JF - Ecological Economics
IS - April
ER -
