Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Eliciting Public Values for Complex Policy Decisions

Contents:

Author Info

  • Ralph L. Keeney

    (Institute of Safety and Systems Management, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • Detlof von Winterfeldt

    (Institute of Safety and Systems Management, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • Thomas Eppel

    (Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Several approaches exist to illuminate and clarify public values relevant for making public policy decisions. These include surveys, indirect and direct value elicitation, focus groups and public involvement. This paper describes a new approach, called the public value forum, which combines elements of focus groups and direct multiattribute value elicitation techniques. Two public value forums were conducted with selected members of the West German public to elicit values relevant for setting long term energy policies. The purposes of conducting the value forums were to examine the feasibility of eliciting values from laypeople and combining them with factual assessments of experts, to determine the extent to which values elicited formally conflict with values elicited informally, and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the public value forum. The results indicate that the public value forum is feasible, that the participants felt comfortable with the procedure and that they were eager to resolve inconsistencies between their intuitive judgments and the multiattribute models. There was substantial conflict between the formally and informally elicited values. However, the participants were able to resolve those conflicts in the course of the value forum, tending towards more moderate alternatives in the process. The public value forum provided useful information for the policy process and education for the participants. However, because it is expensive and time consuming, its main application may involve small samples of opinion leaders and stakeholder representatives, rather than large representative samples of the general public.

    Download Info

    If 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.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.9.1011
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.

    Volume (Year): 36 (1990)
    Issue (Month): 9 (September)
    Pages: 1011-1030

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:36:y:1990:i:9:p:1011-1030

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA
    Phone: +1-443-757-3500
    Fax: 443-757-3515
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.informs.org/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: public values; policy decisions; decision analysis; multiattribute utility analysis;

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2002. "Measuring Forest Resource Values: An Assessment Of Choice Experiments And Preference Construction Methods As Public Involvement Tools," Project Report Series 24036, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    2. Laurie Pearce, 2003. "Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation," Natural Hazards, International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 28(2), pages 211-228, March.
    3. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    4. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Roessler, Craig, 1998. "Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 299-312, December.
    5. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    6. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 13-26, January.
    7. Marttunen, Mika & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 551-563, December.
    8. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    9. Badami, Madhav G., 2004. "Environmental policy-making in a difficult context: motorized two-wheeled vehicle emissions in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(16), pages 1861-1877, November.
    10. Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
    11. Laurie Pearce, 2005. "The Value Of Public Participation During a Hazard, Impact, Risk And Vulnerability (HIRV) Analysis," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 411-441, July.
    12. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    13. Ishizaka, Alessio & Balkenborg, Dieter & Kaplan, Todd R, 2010. "Does AHP help us make a choice? - An experimental evaluation," MPRA Paper 24213, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    15. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2008. "Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 626-635, April.
    16. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Trousdale, William, 2005. "Resource compensation and negotiation support in an aboriginal context: Using community-based multi-attribute analysis to evaluate non-market losses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-186, November.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:36:y:1990:i:9:p:1011-1030. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).

    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.