IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v236y2016i1p233-25310.1007-s10479-014-1774-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value-based argumentation for policy decision analysis: methodology and an exploratory case study of a hydroelectric project in Québec

Author

Listed:
  • Jasmin Tremblay
  • Irène Abi-Zeid

Abstract

In many countries, development projects that may have a substantial impact on the environment are submitted to a public evaluation process within which citizens use argumentation to express and justify their positions regarding a project. These justifications typically refer to various values. Subsequently, a public commission in charge of the evaluation process arrives at a conclusion. But how are the arguments of the various participants taken into account? How do values influence the commission’s recommendation? In order to arrive to an understanding of a commission’s decision process, we focus on the argumentative nature of the process and apply a methodology combining content analysis and a value-based argumentative framework. This methodology was illustrated using a case study of a hydroelectric project in Québec. First, we analysed a corpus of unstructured texts produced during public hearings and extracted the arguments and values of the participants. We then used a computational model to obtain the commission’s possible hypothetical decisions which we compared with the commission’s actual conclusion. Furthermore, we identified some preference elements of the commission, and we partially explained their attitude towards conflicting and incoherent arguments. Finally, based on our experience, we formulated some conclusions regarding the ability and promise of argumentative methods to support decision making in a participatory context. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Jasmin Tremblay & Irène Abi-Zeid, 2016. "Value-based argumentation for policy decision analysis: methodology and an exploratory case study of a hydroelectric project in Québec," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 233-253, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:236:y:2016:i:1:p:233-253:10.1007/s10479-014-1774-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-014-1774-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-014-1774-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-014-1774-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wassila Ouerdane & Nicolas Maudet & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2010. "Argumentation Theory and Decision Aiding," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira & Salvatore Greco (ed.), Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, chapter 0, pages 177-208, Springer.
    2. Alexis Tsoukiàs & Gilberto Montibeller & Giulia Lucertini & Valérie Belton, 2013. "Policy Analytics: An Agenda for Research and Practice," Working Papers hal-00874307, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maria Franca Norese & Diana Rolando & Rocco Curto, 2023. "DIKEDOC: a multicriteria methodology to organise and communicate knowledge," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 1049-1082, June.
    2. Benjamin Delhomme & Franck Taillandier & Irène Abi-Zeid & Rallou Thomopoulos & Cédric Baudrit & Laurent Mora, 2017. "Designing an argumentative decision-aiding tool for urban planning. AIPA : an interface between multicriteria decision aiding and argumentative frameworks," Post-Print hal-01837517, HAL.
    3. Rallou Thomopoulos, 2018. "A practical application approach to argumentation for multicriteria analysis and decision support," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 6(3), pages 237-255, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jasmin Tremblay & Irène Abi-Zeid, 2016. "Value-based argumentation for policy decision analysis: methodology and an exploratory case study of a hydroelectric project in Québec," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 233-253, January.
    2. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Ulrike Reisach, 2016. "The creation of meaning and critical ethical reflection in operational research," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 5-32, June.
    4. Katherine A. Daniell & Alec Morton & David Ríos Insua, 2016. "Policy analysis and policy analytics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Justin Longo & Alan Rodney Dobell, 2018. "The Limits of Policy Analytics: Early Examples and the Emerging Boundary of Possibilities," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 5-17.
    6. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi & Rui Figueira, José, 2015. "Robust multi-criteria sorting with the outranking preference model and characteristic profiles," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 126-140.
    8. Kevin Daudin & Christiane Weber & François Colin & Flavie Cernesson & Pierre Maurel & Valérie Derolez, 2021. "The Collaborative Process in Environmental Projects, a Place-Based Coevolution Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Giada Marchi & Giulia Lucertini & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2016. "From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 15-38, January.
    10. Dell’Anna, Federico & Dell’Ovo, Marta, 2022. "A stakeholder-based approach managing conflictual values in urban design processes. The case of an open prison in Barcelona," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Gandino, E., 2018. "Co-designing the solution space for rural regeneration in a new World Heritage site: A Choice Experiments approachAuthor-Name: Ferretti, V," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1077-1091.
    12. Anastasia Blouchoutzi & Georgios Tsaples & Dimitra Manou & Jason Papathanasiou, 2023. "Investigating Public–Private Cooperation in Migrant Labor Market Integration: A System Dynamics Study to Explore the Challenge for Greece," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-27, January.
    13. Lami, Isabella M. & Todella, Elena, 2023. "A multi-methodological combination of the strategic choice approach and the analytic network process: From facts to values and vice versa," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 802-812.
    14. Katherine Daniell & Alec Morton & David Ríos Insua, 2016. "Policy analysis and policy analytics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 1-13, January.
    15. Antoine Richard & Brice Mayag & François Talbot & Alexis Tsoukias & Yves Meinard, 2020. "What does it mean to provide decision support to a responsible and competent expert?," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 8(3), pages 205-236, November.
    16. Irene Pluchinotta & Akin O. Kazakçi & Raffaele Giordano & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2019. "Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 341-375, April.
    17. Ferretti, Valentina & Liu, Jun & Mousseau, V & Ouerdane, W, 2017. "Reference-based ranking procedure for environmental decision making: insights from an ex-post analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 85933, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Matej Mihelčić & Marko Bohanec, 2017. "Approximating incompletely defined utility functions of qualitative multi-criteria modeling method DEX," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 25(3), pages 627-649, September.
    19. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    20. Nicolas Fayard & Chabane Mazri & Alexis Tsouki`as, 2021. "Is the Capability approach a useful tool for decision aiding in public policy making?," Papers 2101.09357, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:236:y:2016:i:1:p:233-253:10.1007/s10479-014-1774-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.