Acceptable Input: Using Decision Analysis to Guide Public Policy Deliberations

References

• Baron J., Spranca M. Protected values. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1997) 70:1–16Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beierle T. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal. (2002) 22:739–750Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bostrom A., Fischhoff B., Morgan M. G. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. J. Soc. Issues (1992) 48(4):85–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breyer S.Closing the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation (1993) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Budescu D., Wallsten T. S., Busemeyer J., Hastie R., Medin D. Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and empirical evidence. Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective (1995) (Academic Press, New York) 275–318Crossref, Google Scholar
• Canadian Standards Association Risk management guidelines for decision makers (Q850). (1997) . Canadian Standards Association, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
• Chess C., Purcell K. Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environ. Sci. Tech. (1999) 33:2685–2692Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemen R. T.Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis (1996) 2nd ed.(Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA) Google Scholar
• Council of Forest Ministers Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management in Canada. (1997) . Technical report, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
• Cronbach L., Meehl P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psych. Bull. (1955) 52:281–302Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desvousges W., Johnson F., Dunford R., Hudson S., Wilson K., Boyle K., Hausman J. Measuring resource damages with contingent valuation: Test of validity and reliability. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment (1993) (Elsevier Publishers, Holland, The Netherlands) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dietz T. What is a good decision? Criteria for environmental decision making. Human Ecology Rev. (2003) 10:33–39Google Scholar
• Edwards W. Behavioral decision theory. Psych. Bull. (1954) 51:380–397Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eggers S. L., Fischhoff B. A defensible claim? Behaviorally realistic evaluation standards. J. Public Policy Marketing (2004) 23:14–27Crossref, Google Scholar
• Failing L., Gregory R., Harstone M. Integrating knowledge sources in environmental management decisions: A practical approach. (2005) . Working paperGoogle Scholar
• Failing L., Horn G., Higgins P. Using expert judgment and stakeholder values to evaluate adaptive management options. Ecology Soc. (2004) 9:13–24Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B. Clinical decision analysis. Oper. Res. (1980) 28:28–43Link, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B. Value elicitation: Is there anything in there. Amer. Psych. (1991) 46:835–847Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Anal. (1995) 15:137–145Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B., Mäler K-G., Vincent J. Cognitive issues in stated preference methods. Handbook of Environmental Economics (2005) (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Fischhoff B., Cox L. A., Bentkover J. D., Covello V. T., Mumpower J. Conceptual framework for regulatory benefit assessment. Benefits Assessment: The State of the Art (1985) (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands) 51–84Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B., Furby L. Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions. J. Risk Uncertainty (1988) 1:147–184Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B., Manski C. Preference elicitation. J. Risk Uncertainty (1999) 19:1–3Google Scholar
• Florig H. K., Morgan M. G., Morgan K. M., Jenni K. E., Fischhoff B., Fischbeck P. S., DeKay M. A deliberative method for ranking risks (1): Overview and test bed development. Risk Anal. (2001) 21:913–922Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forester J.The Deliberative Practitioner (1999) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Gray J. R. Integration of emotion and cognitive control. Current Directions Psych. Sci. (2004) 13:46–48Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory R. Incorporating value trade-offs into community-based environmental risk decisions. Environ. Values (2002) 11:461–488Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory R., Keeney R. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Sci. (1994) 40:1035–1048Link, Google Scholar
• Gregory R., Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach. J. Risk Uncertainty (1993) 7:177–197Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory R., McDaniels T., Fields D. Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. J. Policy Anal. Management (2001) 20:415–432Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory R., Fischhoff B., Butte G., Thorne S. A multi-channel stakeholder consultation process for energy deregulation. Energy Policy (2003) 31:1291–1299Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hammond J., Keeney R., Raiffa H.Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions (1999) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Hanson J., Keysar D. Taking behavioralism seriously: Some evidence of market manipulation. Harvard Law Rev. (1999) 112:1420–1572Crossref, Google Scholar
• HM Treasury The management of risks: Principles and concepts. (2004) . HM Treasury, London, UKGoogle Scholar
• Hsee C. The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processer (1996) 67:242–257Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Deiner E., Schwartz N.Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonistic Psychology (1999) (Russell Sage Foundation Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Knetsch J. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econom. Management (1992) 22:57–70Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, values & frames. Amer. Psych. (1984) 39:341–350Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney R.Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making (1992) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Keeney R., Gregory R. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper. Res. (2005) 53:1–11Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney R., Raiffa H.Decisions with Multiple Objectives (1993) 2nd ed.(Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney R., Sicherman A. Illustrative comparison of one utility's coal and nuclear choices. Oper. Res. (1983) 31:50–83Link, Google Scholar
• Lerner J. S., Gonzalez R. M., Small D. A., Fischhoff B. Emotion and perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psych. Sci. (2003) 14:144–150Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein G. Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1996) 65:272–292Crossref, Google Scholar
• Löfstedt R., Fischhoff B., Fischhoff I. Precautionary principles: General definitions and specific applications to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). J. Policy Anal. Management (2002) 21:381–407Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDaniels T., Gregory R., Fields D. Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal. (1999) 19:497–510Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDaniels T., Gregory R., Arvai J., Chuenpagdee R. Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecological Econom. (2003) 46:33–46Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgan M. G., Fischhoff B., Bostrom A., Atman C. Risk communication: The mental models approach. (2002) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Morgan M. G., Fischhoff B., Lave L., Fischbeck P., Davies C. A proposal for ranking risks within federal agencies. Comparing Environmental Risks (1996) (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC) 111–147Google Scholar
• Morgan G., Henrion M.Uncertainty (1990) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• National Research Council Science and judgment in risk analysis. (1994) (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• National Research Council Understanding risk. (1996) (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• Payne J., Bettman J., Johnson E. Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Rev. Psych. (1992) 43:87–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Performance and Innovation UnitRisk and Uncertainty (2002) (Parliament, London, UK) Google Scholar
• Phillips L. Requisite decision modeling: A case study. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (1982) 33:303–311Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pidgeon N., Gregory R., Koehler D., Harvey N. Judgment, decision making, and public policy. Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (2004) (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pildes R., Sunstein C. Reinventing the regulatory state. University Chicago Law Rev. (1995) 62:1–129Crossref, Google Scholar
• Posner R.The Economics of Justice (1981) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Poulton M.Behavioral Decision Making (1994) (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) Google Scholar
• Presidential-Congressional Commission on Risk Risk management. (1997) . Presidential-Congressional Commission on Risk, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• Rossi J. Participation run amok: The cost of mass participation for deliberative agency decision making. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. (1997) 92:174–250Google Scholar
• Shacter R. Evaluating influence diagrams. Oper. Res. (1986) 34:871–882Link, Google Scholar
• Schkade D., Payne J. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness-to-pay for an environmental regulation. J. Environ. Econom. Management (1994) 26:88–109Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P. Perceptions of risk. Science (1987) 236:280–285Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P. The construction of preference. Amer. Psych. (1995) 50:364–371Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Rev. Psych. (1977) 28:1–39Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P., Finucane M., Peters E., MacGregor Dl., Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. The affect heuristic. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (2002) (Cambridge University Press, New York) 397–420Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sudman S., Bradburn N., Schwartz N. Thinking about answers. (1996) (Jossey–Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA) Google Scholar
• Sunstein C. Probability neglect: Emotions, worst cases, and law. Yale Law Rev. (2002) 112:61–76Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sunstein C., Kahneman D., Schkade D. Assessing punitive damages. Yale Law J. (1998) 107:2071–23153Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (1974) 185:1124–1131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Sattath S., Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. (1988) 95:371–384Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Interior Managing environmental risks. (1992) . Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region Study 92-0062, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• U.S. National Research Council Building consensus through risk assessment and management of the Department of Energy's Remediation Program. (1994) (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. (1986) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Walters C.Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources (1986) (The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, NJ) Google Scholar