Initial Perspectives From Preferences Expressed Through Comparisons

The original publication is available at www.springerlink.comInternational audienceRating-scales have become a popular modality for expressing our preferences, but they present several drawbacks. We have recently proposed a new modality: comparing items ("I prefer A to B"). After initial user-studies with encouraging results, we here share some initial perspectives. In particular we examine three issues illustrated with graphs of user's preferences. We discuss the adaptability of comparisons, their algorithmic complexity and incoherences introduced by transitivity

Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning

Forest planning in a participatory context often involves multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests. A promising approach for handling these complex situations is to integrate participatory planning and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The objective of this paper is to analyze strengths and weaknesses of such an integrated approach, focusing on how the use of MCDA has influenced the participatory process. The paper outlines a model for a participatory MCDA process with five steps: stakeholder analysis, structuring of the decision problem, generation of alternatives, elicitation of preferences, and ranking of alternatives. This model was applied in a case study of a planning process for the urban forest in Lycksele, Sweden. In interviews with stakeholders, criteria for four different social groups were identified. Stakeholders also identified specific areas important to them and explained what activities the areas were used for and the forest management they wished for there. Existing forest data were combined with information from interviews to create a map in which the urban forest was divided into zones of different management classes. Three alternative strategic forest plans were produced based on the zonal map. The stakeholders stated their preferences individually by the Analytic Hierarchy Process in inquiry forms and a ranking of alternatives and consistency ratios were determined for each stakeholder. Rankings of alternatives were aggregated; first, for each social group using the arithmetic mean, and then an overall aggregated ranking was calculated from the group rankings using the weighted arithmetic mean. The participatory MCDA process in Lycksele is assessed against five social goals: incorporating public values into decisions, improving the substantive quality of decisions, resolving conflict among competing interests, building trust in institutions, and educating and informing the public. The results and assessment of the case study support the integration of participatory planning and MCDA as a viable option for handling complex forest-management situations. Key issues related to the MCDA methodology that need to be explored further were identified: 1) The handling of place-specific criteria, 2) development of alternatives, 3) the aggregation of individual preferences into a common preference, and 4) application and evaluation of the integrated approach in real case studies

Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism

'Extra-welfarism' has received some attention in health economics, yet there is little consensus on what distinguishes it from more conventional 'welfarist economics'. In this paper, we seek to identify the characteristics of each in order to make a systematic comparison of the ways in which they evaluate alternative social states. The focus, though this is not intended to be exclusive, is on health. Specifically, we highlight four areas in which the two schools differ: (i) the outcomes considered relevant in an evaluation; (ii) the sources of valuation of the relevant outcomes; (iii) the basis of weighting of relevant outcomes and (iv) interpersonal comparisons. We conclude that these differences are substantive. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning : review and extension

Scenario planning and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are two key management science tools used in strategic planning. In this paper, we explore the integration of these two approaches in a coherent manner, recognizing that each adds value to the implementation of the other. Various approaches that have been adopted for such integration are reviewed, with a primary focus on the process of constructing preferences both within and between scenarios. Biases that may be introduced by inappropriate assumptions during such processes are identified, and used to motivate a framework for integrating MCDA and scenario thinking, based on applying MCDA concepts across a range of "metacriteria" (combinations of scenarios and primary criteria). Within this framework, preferences according to each primary criterion can be expressed in the context of different scenarios. The paper concludes with a hypothetical but non-trivial example of agricultural policy planning in a developing country

How does one voluntary organisation engage with multiple stakeholder views of effectiveness?

The literature on effectiveness and multiple constituency theory is explored as background to a consideration of the many interpretations of effectiveness existing amongst stakeholders of one organisation. A case study is used to examine how stakeholders judge effectiveness and the process by which their different perspectives are incorporated in the shaping and constant updating of a core view of effectiveness. The management strategies adopted in handling this process are explored, and some elements identified which may provide initial steps towards a management theory

Incremental willingness to pay: a theoretical and empirical exposition

Applications of willingness to pay (WTP) have shown the difficultly to discriminate between various options. This reflects the problem of embedding in both its specific sense, of options being nested within one another, and its more-general sense, whereby respondents cannot discriminate between close substitutes or between more-disparate rivals for the same budget. Furthermore, high proportions of reversals between WTP-value and simple preference based rankings of options are often highlighted. Although an incremental WTP approach was devised to encourage more differentiated answers and a higher degree of consistency among respondents, a theoretical basis for this approach has not been elucidated, and there is little evidence to show that this approach might indeed achieve greater consistency between explicit and implicit rankings inferred from WTP values.We address both these issues. Following our theoretical exposition, standard and incremental approaches were compared with explicit ranking in a study assessing preferences for different French emergency care services. 280 persons, representative of the French adult population, were interviewed. Half received the incremental version, the other half the standard version. Results suggest that the incremental approach provides a ranking of options fully in line with explicit ranking. The standard approach was reasonably consistent with explicit ranking but proved unable to differentiate between the five most preferred providers, as predicted by theory. Our findings suggest that the incremental approach provides results which can be used in priority-setting contexts

Initial experiences of interprofessional problem-based learning: A comparison of male and female students' viewsparison of male and female studentsâ views

Few studies have considered the contribution of PBL to interprofessional education, and even fewer have examined whether women and men evaluate PBL differently. This paper examines first year occupational therapy and physiotherapy students’ evaluations of their initial participation in interprofessional PBL, during a module focusing on communication skills and patient-focused approaches to care. Questionnaire data included attitude ratings and qualitative evaluations of PBL. 133 females and 24 males responded (comprising 83% of the total cohort). Most students were positive that PBL contributed to both personal learning and team-working skills. Both female and male students felt able to express their opinions within the seminar groups and were positive that their understanding of therapists’ roles within the multi-disciplinary team had increased. However, women expressed rather more trust in the information provided by other students, confirmed greater enjoyment in taking responsibility for their own learning and had more positive views about working with students from another course. In their qualitative comments, more women made reference to enjoying the social aspects of PBL (such as groupwork, support and collaboration). The gender differences were not substantial but those that were observed support previous researchers’ arguments that women are more inclined to be ‘connected learners’ who value the social aspects of learning contexts. The findings overall suggested that PBL made a positive, well received contribution to learning during an interprofessional module