Informed Consent for Eliciting Environmental Values

Abstract

Agreeing to participate in a study eliciting environmental values means agreeing to abide by the commitment implied by any proposal that one accepts or rejects in it. That might mean anything from addressing the gist of an issue to expressing an explicit willingness to pay for an environmental change. By soliciting such participation, investigators promise to provide the information that participants need in order to evaluate the proposals being presented. This paper proposes a standard for providing such information that must be met in order to conduct valid and ethical value-elicitation studies. Namely, investigators must secure the informed consent of participants. Drawing on research in risk analysis and communication, this approach allows setting priorities among the facts that could conceivably be conveyed. It also leads to two general strategies for increasing the capacity of the communication channel. The paper concludes by discussing how the policy relevance of value-elicitation studies depends on their ability to ensure informed consent.

Bringing values and deliberation to science communication

“…We are likely to be much more effective if we focus our attention on identifying value differences and designing processes that allow articulation of and reflection on values in the light of decisions that must be taken. Decision sciences provide many helpful tools that allow individuals and groups to clarify their values, and there is some evidence that reflection about and articulation of value positions can reduce conflict and allow for a more effective search for compromises (98)(99)(100)(101).…”

Reducing seismic risk by understanding its cultural roots: Inference from an Italian case history

“…The literature on risk perception and communication suggests that there are a number of reasons why health warnings are often not heeded or acted upon by the public [20]. These include message features (ambiguity of risk information or the actions needed to overcome risk), poor communicator abilities, personal characteristics of the audience (prior experiences, personality traits, cognitive biases, attitudes toward personal vulnerability, distrust of authorities), and social influences through the media and informal social networks [20][21][22]. In particular, [23,24] has consistently demonstrated that there are many factors that influence the perception of risk-among them, the salience of risk issues, the information provided by the mass media and the way in which they are presented.…”

Chapter 18 Cognitive Processes in Stated Preference Methods

“…Researchers have an obligation to provide respondents with the conditions needed to produce the valuations they seek [Fischhoff (2000)]. Otherwise, they (and those who use their work) may misrepresent respondents.…”

“…With gist studies, the primary risk is asking respondents to reflect too hard on their values, taking them beyond their initial gut reactions, perhaps even throwing them into question [Fischhoff (1991[Fischhoff ( , 2000, Wilson et al (1993)]. …”

“…That is, they can try either to convey the few most important individual features or to create a meaningful whole that facilitates recalling and inferring features [Fischhoff (1999[Fischhoff ( , 2000]. The piecemeal strategy creates a supply curve for features, focusing on those that respondents most need to learn [Merz, Small and Fischbeck (1992), Riley, Small and Fischhoff (2000)].…”