Deliberative processes provide an important alternative input to environmental politics as they may, in contrast to often used market simulations, provide an arena for 1) discussion of lay participants’ values, 2) articulating arguments grounded in other values than consequentialistic, and 3) capturing weakly comparable values. A case study of a Citizens’ Jury (CJ) on genetically modified plants was used to investigate how the framing of the process affected the attitude formation among the citizens. The formal set up of this specific CJ made value discussions less relevant. While it opened for value plurality, it failed to facilitate the articulation of weakly comparable values.
AhteensuuM. and SiipiH.. 2009. ‘A critical assessment of public consultations on GMOs in the European Union’. Environmental Values18: 129–152. CrossRef.
2.
AjzenI. and FishbeinM.. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
3.
CrosbyN.1995. ‘Citizens’ Juries: One solution for difficult environmental questions’. In RennO., WeblerT. and WiedermannP. (eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, pp. 157–74. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRef.
4.
DurantR. F. and LeggeJ. S.Jr. 2005. ‘Public opinion, risk perceptions, and genetically modified food regulatory policy. Reassessing the calculus of dissent among European Citizens’. European Union Politics19: 191–200.
5.
EaglyA. H. and ChaikenS.. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, Tex.: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.
6.
EinsiedelE.F., JelsoeE. and BreckT.. 2001. ‘Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia’. Public Understanding of Science10: 83–98. CrossRef.
7.
FishkinJ. and LuskinR.. 2000. ‘The quest for deliberative democracy’. In SawardM. (ed.), Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association, pp. 17–27. London: Routledge.
FrenchD. and LaverM.. 2009. ‘Participation bias, durable opinion shifts and sabotage through withdrawal in citizens’ juries’. Political Studies57: 422–450. CrossRef.
JacobsM.1997. ‘Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions’. In FosterJ. (ed.), Valuing Nature? pp. 211–231. London: Routledge. CrossRef.
JolyP.B. and AssoulineG.. 2001. ADAPTA Project. Final Report.
14.
JossS. and DurantJ.. 1995. ‘The UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology’. Public Understanding of Science4: 195–204. CrossRef.
15.
KenyonW, HanleyN. and NevinC.. 2001. ‘Citizens’ juries: an aid to environmental valuation?’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19: 557–566. CrossRef.
16.
KenyonW. and CarterC.. 2004. Co-ordination Actions. Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology (PATH). Aberdeen: Macauley Institute (EU project: FP6-2002- science and society), 2004. http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/socioeconomics/research/path/index.html (assessed 29.06.10).
17.
London Centre for Governance Innovation and Science & The Genetics Forum. 1999. Citizen Foresight; a tool to enhance democratic policy-making, London Centre for Governance Innovation and Science & The Genetics Forum, London, http://www.ncl.ac.uk/peals/assets/publications/Citizenforesight.pdf (assessed 29.06.10).
18.
LuskinR., FishkinJ. and JowellR.. 2002. ‘Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain’. British Journal of Political Science32: 455–87. CrossRef.
19.
MarrisC., WynneB., SimmonsP. and WeldonS.. 2001. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Final Report of the PABE research project, www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.pdf (assessed29.06.10).
20.
MayerI., de VriesJ. and GuertsJ.. 1995. ‘An evaluation of the effects of participation in a consensus conference’. In JossS. and DurantJ. (eds.), Public Participation in Science. The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe.London: Science Museum.
21.
Nielsen AnnikaP., LassenJ. and SandøeP.. 2007. ‘Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics20: 13–35. CrossRef.
22.
Nielsen AnnikaP., LassenJ. and SandøeP.. 2011. ‘Public participation: Democratic ideal or pragmatic tool? The case of GM foods and functional foods’. Public Understanding of Science20: 163–178. CrossRef.
23.
O'NeillJ.1993. Ecology, Policy and Politics: Human Well-Being and the Natural World. (London: Routledge).
24.
O'NeillJ., HollandA. and LightA.. 2008. Environmental Values. (London: Routledge).
25.
PEALS (Policy Ethics And Life Sciences Research Institute).2003. The Peoples Report on GM, Newcastle: Policy Ethics and Life Sciences Research Institute.
RoweG., MarschR. and FrewerL.J.. 2004. ‘Evaluation of a deliberative conference’. Science Technology and Human Values29: 88–121. CrossRef.
29.
SmithG. and WalesC.. 2000. ‘Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy’. Political Studies48: 51–65.
30.
SpashClive L.2007. ‘Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change’. Ecological Economics63: 690–699. CrossRef.
