The structured value referendum: Eliciting preferences for environmental policy alternatives

This article introduces a voting-based method for eliciting public preferences, referred to as a structured value referendum (SVR). The process for developing and implementing an SVR is viewed as a version of public sector decision analysis, in which problem-structuring activities are crucial, and preference is elicited on a large scale by voters selecting among specified alternatives. The present study discusses the steps involved in developing an SVR, drawing on the problem-structuring approaches of decision analysis. Next, the advantages offered by SVR are discussed and compared to standard preference elicitation techniques or conventional referendums. A rationale for the use of SVR as an approach to preference elicitation is provided. Political judgments that differentiate SVR from other elicitation approaches are considered; the nature of the preference judgments and the required level of measurement are discussed. Concluding sections of the study discuss the implementation of an SVR for a regional government in British Columbia, in which 34,000 people voted to select among wastewater treatment alternatives for managing a potential environmental risk.

[1]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Characterizing Mental Models of Hazardous Processes: A Methodology and an Application to Radon , 1992 .

[2]  H. Schuman,et al.  Problems in the Use of Survey Questions to Measure Public Opinion , 1987, Science.

[3]  Combining deliberation and fair representation in community health decisions. , 1992, University of Pennsylvania law review.

[4]  T. F. Weaver,et al.  Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms , 1993 .

[5]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[6]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[7]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility , 1988 .

[8]  A. Tversky Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[9]  R. Deacon,et al.  The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments , 1972 .

[10]  T. McDaniels,et al.  Reference points, loss aversion, and contingent values for auto safety , 1992 .

[11]  J. Payne,et al.  How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation , 1994 .

[12]  D. Kahneman,et al.  CHAPTER EIGHT. Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market , 2004 .

[13]  H. Bowen,et al.  The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources , 1943 .

[14]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach , 1993 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[16]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Structuring Objectives for Problems of Public Interest , 1988, Oper. Res..

[17]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[18]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .