Citizens' Juries: An Aid to Environmental Valuation?

Survey techniques such as contingent valuation have been used extensively by environmental economists to develop an understanding of consumer preferences for environmental goods. On the basis of such techniques, recommendations have been formulated in relation to environmental policy. However, the exposure of weaknesses in this method has led economists to look to other information-gathering approaches which might enhance, and/or complement, environmental valuation. One such approach is that of ‘citizens’ juries' (CJs). A CJ consists of a small group of people, selected to represent the general public rather than any interest group or sector, which meets to deliberate upon a policy question. This approach may complement traditional approaches to data gathering on public preferences for environmental goods and services by addressing some of the concerns that have been voiced regarding existing methods. First, CJs may be useful in tackling the problem of information provision, and concerns relating to the level of understanding of the respondent. Second, CJs may be a means of addressing the ‘citizen value versus consumer value’ argument in environmental valuation. Third, CJs may help researchers understand how participants construct their values. Fourth, this approach allows sustainability issues to be addressed explicitly. The authors also discuss a number of problems associated with CJs and conclude with examples from two recent juries on environmental issues which were held in Scotland, and make recommendations on how environmental economists might utilise this tool.

[1]  N. Hanley,et al.  Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches , 2002 .

[2]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 2000 .

[3]  M. Sagoff Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing , 1998 .

[4]  Richard Kuper Deliberating waste: The Hertfordshire Citizens' Jury , 1997 .

[5]  Michael Jacobs,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION, DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING INSTITUTIONS , 1997 .

[6]  Craig Bullock,et al.  Preservation and Change in the Upland Landscape: The Public Benefits of Grazing Management , 1997 .

[7]  A. G. Gundersen The Environmental Promise of Democratic Deliberation , 1995 .

[8]  William H. Desvousges,et al.  Focus Groups and Risk Communication: The “Science” of Listening to Data , 1988 .

[9]  Tom Tietenberg,et al.  The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1999/2000 , 1999 .

[10]  M. Barnes Building a deliberative democracy : an evaluation of two citizens' juries , 1999 .

[11]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Decision-Pathway Surveys: A Tool for Resource Managers , 1997 .

[12]  B. Tonn,et al.  The values jury to aid natural resource decisions , 1995 .

[13]  Ned Crosby,et al.  Citizens Juries: One Solution for Difficult Environmental Questions , 1995 .

[14]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[15]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .

[16]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[17]  Jon Elster,et al.  Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality , 1983 .