准确可及参与式规划的价值-权重启发方法比较

IF 2.8 3区经济学 Q2 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING

Journal of Planning Education and Research Pub Date : 2023-02-18 DOI:10.1177/0739456x231155069

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}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究分析了参与式规划中常用的六种价值权重启发技术。它通过测量（1）准确性（受试者内部用户衍生的评估和定量权重比较）和（2）可及性（完成时间、难度和“无聊”）来比较这些技术。视觉滑块在评估中表现最佳。成对比较、视觉滑块和挥杆加权最准确，而视觉滑块和垂直视觉标尺最容易获得。积分分配和流行的Likert型方法在评估中表现不佳。所有方法都产生了相似的权重，突出了在选择天平时可访问性的重要性。这项研究可以为参与式规划和调查设计技术提供信息。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Planning Education and Research Multiple-

CiteScore

7.40

自引率

4.50%

发文量

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.