Deliberation on GMOs: A Study of How a Citizens' Jury Affects the Citizens' Attitudes
AbstractDeliberative processes provide an important alternative input to environmental politics as they may, in contrast to often used market simulations, provide an arena for 1) discussion of lay participants' values, 2) articulating arguments grounded in other values than consequentialistic, and 3) capturing weakly comparable values. A case study of a Citizens' Jury (CJ) on genetically modified plants was used to investigate how the framing of the process affected the attitude formation among the citizens. The formal set up of this specific CJ made value discussions less relevant. While it opened for value plurality, it failed to facilitate the articulation of weakly comparable values.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by White Horse Press in its journal Environmental Values.
Volume (Year): 22 (2013)
Issue (Month): 4 (August)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.erica.demon.co.uk
Deliberative institutions; value articulation; participation; GMO;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D46 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Value Theory
- D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
- O13 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
- O32 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Clive L Spash, 2007. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Theory," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2007-01, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
- Clive L Spash, 2007. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Practice," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2007-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
- Wendy Kenyon & Nick Hanley & Ceara Nevin, 2001. "Citizens' juries: an aid to environmental valuation?," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 19(4), pages 557-566, August.
- Graham Smith & Corinne Wales, 2000. "Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(1), pages 51-65, 03.
- Marko Ahteensuu & Helena Siipi, 2009. "A Critical Assessment of Public Consultations on GMOs in the European Union," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 18(2), pages 129-152, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Andrew Johnson).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.