Lorien Nesbitt, M. Meitner, B. Chamberlain, Julian Gonzalez, W. Trousdale
{"title":"准确可及参与式规划的价值-权重启发方法比较","authors":"Lorien Nesbitt, M. Meitner, B. Chamberlain, Julian Gonzalez, W. Trousdale","doi":"10.1177/0739456x231155069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research analyzed six value-weight-elicitation techniques that are commonly used in participatory planning. It compared the techniques via measures of (1) accuracy (within-subjects user-derived assessments and quantitative weight comparisons) and (2) accessibility (time to complete, difficulty, and “boringness”). Visual sliders performed best across assessments. Pairwise comparison, visual sliders, and swing weighting were the most accurate, while visual sliders and vertical visual scale were the most accessible. Point allocation and the popular Likert-type method performed poorly across assessments. All methods produced similar weights, highlighting the importance of accessibility when choosing scales. This research can inform participatory planning and survey design techniques.","PeriodicalId":16793,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Planning Education and Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Value-Weight-Elicitation Methods for Accurate and Accessible Participatory Planning\",\"authors\":\"Lorien Nesbitt, M. Meitner, B. Chamberlain, Julian Gonzalez, W. Trousdale\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0739456x231155069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This research analyzed six value-weight-elicitation techniques that are commonly used in participatory planning. It compared the techniques via measures of (1) accuracy (within-subjects user-derived assessments and quantitative weight comparisons) and (2) accessibility (time to complete, difficulty, and “boringness”). Visual sliders performed best across assessments. Pairwise comparison, visual sliders, and swing weighting were the most accurate, while visual sliders and vertical visual scale were the most accessible. Point allocation and the popular Likert-type method performed poorly across assessments. All methods produced similar weights, highlighting the importance of accessibility when choosing scales. This research can inform participatory planning and survey design techniques.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16793,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Planning Education and Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Planning Education and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x231155069\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Planning Education and Research","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x231155069","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Comparison of Value-Weight-Elicitation Methods for Accurate and Accessible Participatory Planning
This research analyzed six value-weight-elicitation techniques that are commonly used in participatory planning. It compared the techniques via measures of (1) accuracy (within-subjects user-derived assessments and quantitative weight comparisons) and (2) accessibility (time to complete, difficulty, and “boringness”). Visual sliders performed best across assessments. Pairwise comparison, visual sliders, and swing weighting were the most accurate, while visual sliders and vertical visual scale were the most accessible. Point allocation and the popular Likert-type method performed poorly across assessments. All methods produced similar weights, highlighting the importance of accessibility when choosing scales. This research can inform participatory planning and survey design techniques.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Planning Education and Research (JPER) is a forum for planning educators and scholars (from both academia and practice) to present results from teaching and research that advance the profession and improve planning practice. JPER is the official journal of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) and the journal of record for North American planning scholarship. Aimed at scholars and educators in urban and regional planning, political science, policy analysis, urban geography, economics, and sociology, JPER presents the most vital contemporary trends and issues in planning theory, practice, and pedagogy.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
