Consideraciones para la Determinación del Calendario para los Anuncios de las Decisiones

From the above discussion, it is possible to extract five key factors that affect how values are expressed and shared. These need to be carefully considered in the design of deliberative processes to elicit values:

83

1. Extent to which people are able to make their values explicit and/or deliberate around certain tasks (e.g. education, social-economic status).

2. Context in which the social interaction occurs (e.g. how questions are framed or how power dynamics are managed).

3. Extent to which the deliberation or social interaction occurs (e.g. intensive, less intensive). 4. Extent to which values are explicitly considered in deliberative processes (e.g. the degree to

which values are discussed directly will affect the extent to which participants reflect on which values are important).

5. The length of time over which social interaction occurs.

Ultimately, all of the above factors influence how social learning or deliberative processes might be designed to elicit values. This elicitation process can have different outcomes that have implications for shared values (Table 10), depending on the extent to which social interaction/deliberation occurs and the extent to which it explicitly considers values (Table 11). Table 12 considers how these design features are likely to affect values and Table 13 considers the role of the timescale over which deliberation occurs.

In summary, there is limited research that directly considers how deliberation or social learning influences how values are shaped or shared. However, it seems clear that values are shaped by social interaction and the norms and cultures in which these interactions are embedded. Deliberative and social learning processes therefore provide opportunities for helping people understand the values of others and, if designed appropriately, can lead to increased sharing of values or greater acceptance of the decisions that emerge from such processes, even if the values that underpin those decisions are not shared.

Finally, although not explicitly linked to the role of deliberation in eliciting and shaping values, UK NEAFO WP8 considers the different decision-making scales at which ES may be incorporated into appraisal processes and argues that it is important to facilitate learning across appraisal types and scales. It identifies a number of institutional and cultural barriers to knowledge exchange and social learning about ES (and barriers that prevent putting what has been learned into practice). It suggests that communication between those who generate and those who use knowledge is key and propose the creation of neutral spaces where actors from different policy sectors and governance levels can generate more integrated approaches to environmental issues together. The evidence reviewed in this section would suggest that it may be beneficial to design opportunities for deliberation into these spaces; Section 3 of this report considers how such processes might be designed.

84

Table 10. The different kinds of outcomes that can emerge from deliberative/social interaction relevant to the sharing of values.

Outcome Explanation

Improve people’s understanding of the values of others.

When people deliberate and discuss values, they are more likely to understand the values of others and the extent to which their values are shared. However, this does not have to result in changes in the values expressed compared to non-deliberative approaches or greater sharing of values. Understanding the values may, however, help people to understand that there are multiple ways people express value, with potential for greater acceptance of a decision even if it is not aligned to their own values.

Change in the contextual or

transcendental values elicited.

A social interaction may enhance ability for people to express latent values or those that are difficult to articulate while also enhancing opportunities for people to discuss them. There is therefore a change in the values that are elicited relative to not using deliberative techniques but not in ways that result in the greater sharing of values. This can occur for either contextual or transcendental values.

Change in the contextual or

transcendental values expressed in ways that result in greater sharing of values.

The social interaction and deliberation helps people elicit values and discuss them, resulting in changes in the values expressed in ways that that people conform to the values of others. Note that it is also possible for people to change the values expressed in divergent ways.

Table 11. Examples of different ways in which values might be elicited relative to the extent to which values are explicitly deliberated.

Strong social interaction/deliberation No or weak social interaction/deliberation Explicit

consideration of values

A deliberative workshop/process where people directly discuss their own values and how this impacts their decisions before stating preferences. This discussion could be about contextual or transcendental values.

People may be asked to consider key

questions about their values before they state preferences (e.g. on a survey), but such processes may not include any

deliberation/social interaction.

Implicit or no consideration of values

Deliberative workshops that discuss an issue (e.g. providing information about biodiversity) which then ask people to state their preferences individually. Note that there may be no discussion about value.

People consider key information (e.g. about biodiversity) in ways that are not related to values (e.g. information about how ES originate), but this may not include any deliberation/social interaction.

85

Table 12. Likelihood of changes in values expressed or shared as a result of combinations of different kinds of deliberative interactions.

Strong social interaction/ deliberation No or weak social interaction/ deliberation Explicit consideration of values

Improve people’s understanding of the values of others.

Likely Likely

Change in the contextual values elicited. Likely Unlikely Change in the transcendental values

elicited.

Possible Very unlikely

Change in the contextual values expressed in ways that result in greater sharing of values.

Possible Very unlikely

Change in the transcendental values expressed in ways that result in greater sharing of values.

Possible Very unlikely

Implicit or no consideration of values

Improve people’s understanding of the values of others.

Possible Unlikely

Change in the contextual values elicited. Possible Very unlikely Change in the transcendental values

elicited.

Unlikely Very unlikely

Change in the contextual values expressed in ways that result in greater sharing of values.

Possible Very unlikely

Change in the transcendental values expressed in ways that result in greater sharing of values.

86

Table 13. Likelihood of changes in values expressed or shared as a result of the extent of social interaction with time.

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Examples E.g. deliberative

valuation workshops E.g. negotiations in yearlong decision- making in a local authority E.g. moral development in children, values and practices operating in

adaptive cultures Likelihood of Impacts

Improve people’s understanding of

the values of others. Likely Likely Likely

Change in the contextual values

elicited. Possible Possible Likely

Change in the transcendental

values elicited Unlikely Possible

Likely (but not necessarily) Change in the contextual values

expressed in ways that result in greater sharing of values.

Possible Possible Likely

Change in the transcendental values expressed in ways that result in greater sharing of values.

Unlikely

(but possible) Possible

Likely (but not necessarily)