Reference no: EM133327665

Question: They illustrate a lively debate not only on the best method to achieve this, but also on issues (ethical, political, interdisciplinary, etc.) that go beyond simple economic calculation. As an agricultural economist who has taken this course, you are invited to contribute your two cents to this discussion by trying to answer these three sets of questions.

1- The editorial in Nature evokes, without naming it, contingent valuation (for example to assess a lake). What are the criticisms addressed to him in the article? Can you talk more about this criticism based on the elements discussed in class (benefit of a controlled experiment, the problem of hypothetical bias, notion of consequence, etc.)?

2- The two texts show that economists are not the only ones to invite themselves into this debate: biologists, experts in ecology, philosophers, etc. also have their say. What do you think interdisciplinarity can bring to the study of this problem? If you had to collaborate with researchers from other disciplines to set up an experimental economics protocol related to the evaluation of an environmental good or service, how would you proceed and what difficulties do you anticipate?

3- Why can the social, political or even historical context in which an environmental good or service to be assessed is found be important? How do you think the example of developing countries or Aboriginal people illustrates this point (see in particular the text of Nature, you can also take examples from Quebec)?