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

Elisabeth Gsottbauer*, Ivana Logar, Jeroen van den Bergh

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Other contribution

17 Citations (Scopus)

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
Number of pages6
Volume112
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2015

Publication series

NameEcological Economics
PublisherElsevier
ISSN (Print)0921-8009

Keywords

  • Commodification
  • Cost-benefit analysis
  • Environmental policy
  • Evaluation criteria
  • Monetary valuation
  • Valuation languages

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Towards a fair, constructive and consistent criticism of all valuation languages: Comment on Kallis et al. (2013)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this