IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v21y2001i6p1065-1076.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing a Structured Decision Approach: Value‐Focused Thinking for Deliberative Risk Communication

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph L. Arvai
  • Robin Gregory
  • Timothy L. McDaniels

Abstract

Public participation is now part of many decision making processes for managing environmental and technical risks. This article describes a test of a strategy to improve the quality of public input by combining themes from risk communication with the prescriptive decision process of value‐focused thinking. It was hypothesized that participating in a structured, value‐focused risk communication approach would lead people to make more thoughtful, better informed, and hence higher quality decisions by helping them to consider and discuss a wider array of decision‐relevant issues and address key value trade‐offs. It is also anticipated that utilizing a value‐focused decision structure would make participants feel more comfortable with their decisions; more satisfied that their selected alternative reflected their key concerns; and, in the end, more satisfied with their decisions. To test these hypotheses, six groups comprised of 7 to 10 people participated in conventional “alternative‐focused” risk communication workshops and eight groups participated in similar “value‐focused” workshops. All workshops dealt with the management of risks to riverine salmon habitat from hydroelectric electricity generation. The results provided support for the hypotheses: the value‐focused decision structure led to more thoughtful and better informed risk management decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph L. Arvai & Robin Gregory & Timothy L. McDaniels, 2001. "Testing a Structured Decision Approach: Value‐Focused Thinking for Deliberative Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(6), pages 1065-1076, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:6:p:1065-1076
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.216175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.216175
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.216175?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
    2. Mason, Claire M. & Paxton, Gillian & Parsons, Richard & Parr, Joanna M. & Moffat, Kieren, 2014. "“For the benefit of Australians”: Exploring national expectations of the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Lapinski, Maria Knight & Funk, Julie A. & Moccia, Lauren T., 2015. "Recommendations for the role of social science research in One Health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 51-60.
    4. Killemsetty, Namesh & Johnson, Michael & Patel, Amit, 2022. "Understanding housing preferences of slum dwellers in India: A community-based operations research approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 699-713.
    5. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:6:p:1065-1076. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.