Advertisement

The Sierra Nevada Example: Elicitation and Analysis of Preferences

  • Peter J. BalintEmail author
  • Ronald E. Stewart
  • Anand Desai
  • Lawrence C. Walters
Chapter
  • 2.2k Downloads

Abstract

The survey of the workshop participants described in  Chapter 8 offered a broad overview of the multiple stakeholder perspectives regarding the management of the national forests in the Sierra Nevada region. Even among groups that seem superficially homogeneous, such as individuals who work for the Forest Service, we found a diversity of opinions about how best to manage the forests.

Keywords

Forest Management Mechanical Treatment Attribute Level Conjoint Analysis Preference Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Block, J. 1961. The Q-sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas (reprinted in 1978 by Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, S. R., W. Durning, and S. Selden. 1999. “Q-methodology.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, edited by Gerald J. Miller and Marcia L. Whicker. New York: M. Dekker.Google Scholar
  3. Delbeq, A., and A. Van de Ven. 1971. “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning.” Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 7: 467–92.Google Scholar
  4. Dryzek, J. S., and J. Berejikian. 1993. “Reconstructive Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 87 (1): 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Durning, D., and D. Edwards. 1992. “The Attitudes of Consolidation Elites: An Empirical Assessment of Their Views of City-County Mergers.” Southeastern Political Review 20: 355–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fishbein, M. 1967. “A Behavior Theory Approach to the Between Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude toward the Object.” In Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, edited by M. Fishbein, 389–99. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Green, P. E., and V. Srinivasan. 1978. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook.” Journal of Consumer Research 5: 102–23.Google Scholar
  8. Green, P. E. 1990. “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Marketing 54 (4): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenhalgh, L., and S. A. Neslin. 1981. “Conjoint Analysis of Negotiator Preferences.”Journal of Conflict Resolution 25 (2): 301–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luce, R. D., and J. W. Tukey. 1964. “Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1 (2): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin, I. M., and T. A. Steelman. 2004. “Using Multiple Methods to Understand Agency Values and Objectives: Lessons from Public Lands Management.” Policy Sciences 37: 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. National Research Council. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. O’Reilly, C. A., J. A. Chatman, and D. F. Caldwell. 1991. “People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit.” Academy of Management Journal 34: 487–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pill, J. 1971. “The Delphi Method: Substance, Context, a Critique and an Annotated Bibliography.” Socio-Economic Planning Science 5: 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reddy, V. S., R. J. Bush, and R. Roudik. 1995. A Market-oriented Approach to Maximizing Product Benefits: Cases in U.S. Forest Product Industries. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Department of Forest Economics, Publication no. 4. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_reddy001.pdf.Google Scholar
  17. Ryan, M., and S. Farrar. 2000. “Using Conjoint Analysis to Elicit Preferences for Health Care.” British Medical Journal 320: 1530–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saaty, T. L. 1980. Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Shamir, M., and J. Shamir. 1995. “Competing Values in Public Opinion: A Conjoint Analysis.” Political Behavior 17 (1): 107–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shocker, A. D., and V. Srinivasan. 1977. “A Consumer Based Methodology for the Identification of New Product Ideas.” Management Science 20: 921–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stephenson, W. 1935. “Technique of Factor Analysis.” Nature 136: 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stephenson, W. 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stephenson, W. 1978. “Concourse Theory of Communication.” Communication 3: 21–40.Google Scholar
  24. Theiss-Morse, E. 1993. “Conceptualizations of Good Citizenship and Political Participation.” Political Behavior 15 (4): 355–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thompson, W. 1935. “On Complete Families of Correlation Coefficients and Their Tendency to Zero Tetrad-differences.” British Journal of Psychology 26: 63–92.Google Scholar
  26. Zinkhan, F. C., T. P. Holmes, and D. E. Mercer. 1997. “Conjoint Analysis: A Preference-based Approach for the Accounting of Multiple Benefits in Southern Forest Management.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 21 (4): 180–86.Google Scholar
  27. Steelman, T. A., and L. A. Maguire. 1999. “Understanding Participant Perspectives: Q-methodology in National Forest Management.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18: 361–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Island Press 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Balint
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ronald E. Stewart
    • 2
  • Anand Desai
    • 3
  • Lawrence C. Walters
    • 4
  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  3. 3.Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations