Abstract
AbstractWater service providers are being urged to incorporate customer preferences into their investment plans with the relative merits of different elicitation techniques being exposed to greater scrutiny. Though elicitation can be undertaken with a range of methods, there is little understanding of their comparative performance in terms of being able to generate consistent or commensurable outcomes. This study reports an evaluation of both intra and inter method consistency for three preference elicitation methods. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is used to measure consistency within and between elicitation methods and session transcripts provide additional evidence to support interpretation of the ranking process. Findings exposed low intramethod variation but significant variation in some intermethod comparisons. Discussion focuses on the internal dynamics of each method with conclusions calling for a wider range of methods to be studied so as to improve practitioner confidence in the use of these tools.
Highlights
Wider public involvement with commercial and public sector investment programmes is increasingly coming to characterise planning and decision-making processes
We would note that this paper is, to our knowledge, the first to offer an explicit comparative analysis of the consistency of the outcomes of different preference elicitation methods within a water services context
It is in one sense encouraging that the three tested methods exhibit such internal consistency in reflecting preferences
Summary
Wider public involvement with commercial and public sector investment programmes is increasingly coming to characterise planning and decision-making processes. Instrumental benefits are founded on the potential for public participation to counter a reported decline in public trust and confidence in both the professional classes (‘experts’) and planning and decision-making processes; a result of the public’s greater access to knowledge and information (Rowe and Frewer, 2004; Petts, 2005; Cass, 2006; Kuyper, 2018) Building capacity with those who have the potential to impede progress is argued to act to reduce opposition and foster a mutual understanding of, and empathy with, issues that may be barriers facilitating a smoother implementation of policy outcomes (Dean, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
