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

E. Gsottbauer, I. Logar, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)164-169
JournalEcological Economics
Volume112
Issue numberApril
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

valuation
cost-benefit analysis
Criticism
Language
environmental policy

Cite this

@article{fa51ebb397b64fed9cafb7ada2c5fb20,
title = "Towards a fair, constructive and consistent criticism of all valuation languages: Comment on Kallis et al. (2013)",
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.",
author = "E. Gsottbauer and I. Logar and {van den Bergh}, J.C.J.M.",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.014",
language = "English",
volume = "112",
pages = "164--169",
journal = "Ecological Economics",
issn = "0921-8009",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "April",

}

Towards a fair, constructive and consistent criticism of all valuation languages: Comment on Kallis et al. (2013). / Gsottbauer, E.; Logar, I.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.

In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 112, No. April, 2015, p. 164-169.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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

VL - 112

SP - 164

EP - 169

JO - Ecological Economics

JF - Ecological Economics

SN - 0921-8009

IS - April

ER -