ABSTRACT
There is now a relatively well-developed critique of the contingent valuation method (CVM) for adding decisions about environmental problems. Theories of deliberative democracy have been invoked which question the individualistic, preference-based calculus of contingent valuation. A particular deliberative institution which has recently received much attention is the citizens’ jury (CJ). This is taken here to involve around 16 ordinary members of the public, selected to represent a cross-section of the local community. The jury comes together over a period of usually four days to consider an important public policy question. The members of the jury are briefed by and question expert ‘witnesses’, and discuss the issues with each other in small and large groups, chaired by an independent moderator. However, while the original impetus for the adoption of deliberative institutions in environmental policy-making was undoubtedly dissatisfaction with the CVM and the search for an alternative, a perhaps unexpected development is that advocates of deliberative institutions no longer see them as direct alternatives to the CVM. For instance, as the CJ methodology has been elaborated in more detail, researchers have increasingly realized that the CJ ‘valuation exercise’ serves different purposes, answers different questions, and makes different assumptions about the individual participants than the CVM.
