ABSTRACT
This chapter introduces three deliberative methods that have proved apt for CES. These methods are based on dialogue’s communication principles that centre primarily on attentive listening and reflection, hence, they recognize plurality of values, account for reasonable differences, and accept the co-existence of multiple realities. The dialogue embedded in these methods leads to deliberation, namely innovative and transformative action-centered decision-making frameworks that consider the trade-offs among the possible options. The chapter addresses how each of these methods emerged from lessons gleaned from empirical experimentation: the conventional charrette sought to understand the barriers to community gardening at four community gardens in the Region of Waterloo in Ontario (Canada), and to overcome these barriers through design; the combined participatory mapping, value compass, and charrette method aimed to identify local communities’ challenges, needs, and preferences in adapting the built form of their settlements to climate change with the objective of enhancing their climate resilience; and the deliberative Q-method strove to understand how local experts valued Amman’s urban water features vis-à-vis its accelerating urban development. Throughout, the discussion addresses the legitimacy of deliberative methods both discursively and methodologically. Importantly, these deliberative methods complement other valuation methods to empower optimized and balanced decision-making around CES.
