Data underlying the publication: Beyond face validity: Assessment of a participatory value evaluation for an institutionalized transport conflict

The importance of public participation in transport planning continues to increase. Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) is a relatively new instrument to involve citizens in transport planning. In a PVE, citizens are put into the shoes of a policymaker and see which polices are considered, the impacts of the policies and the constraint that the policymaker faces. Subsequently, citizens are asked to advise the policymaker on which policy options should be chosen and why. So far PVE has been successfully applied in contexts in which citizens and stakeholders broadly agreed on the pursued policy goals. It is, however, unclear whether PVE is equally valuable in contexts in which stakeholders have conflicting interests. This paper investigates whether deploying PVE in an institutionalized transport conflict results in similar benefits and costs as in contexts where stakeholders pursue the same goals.<br>We studied a PVE application in which 2466 participants provided recommendations to the government about decision-making regarding Schiphol Airport, the Netherlands. Stakeholders were involved in many phases of and decisions on the PVE design process. The aim of this research was twofold. First, to establish whether the benefits of applying PVE in an institutionalized transport conflict outweigh the costs. Second, to develop an instrument to assess the face validity of PVE as experienced by participants. We designed the PVE in the software system WeValuate. We interviewed several stakeholders in a semi-structured manner about their views on the PVE's face validity. We performed the data analyses in STATA, version 16. <br>We find that PVE can provide similar benefits in the context of an institutionalized conflict compared to cases in which such a conflict was absent. Citizens participated who normally do not participate and the PVE produced useful outcomes for decision-making. However, a notable difference is that the design phase of the PVE involved several feedback rounds which made it much more time-intensive than other cases. Hence, the benefit that PVE requires low time investment of civil servants that emerged in other studies was not applicable when applying PVE to an institutionalized transport conflict setting. Furthermore, stakeholders could not agree on various design choices of the PVE. To satisfy the diverging requests of stakeholders a very lengthy PVE was constructed. As a result, the satisfaction among participants about its face validity was relatively low.

公众参与交通规划的重要性与日俱增。参与式价值评估（Participatory Value Evaluation，PVE）是一种较新的让公民参与交通规划的工具。在PVE流程中，公民会被置于政策制定者的视角，了解待审议的政策、政策的影响以及政策制定者面临的约束条件。随后，参与者需要向政策制定者提出应当选择何种政策方案的建议，并阐明理由。迄今为止，PVE已在公民与利益相关方就所追求的政策目标达成广泛共识的场景中成功应用。但目前尚不清楚，在利益相关方利益存在冲突的场景中，PVE是否同样具有应用价值。本文旨在探究，在制度化交通冲突场景中应用PVE，能否带来与利益相关方目标一致的场景中相当的收益与成本。
我们针对一项PVE应用案例展开研究，共有2466名参与者就荷兰史基浦机场（Schiphol Airport）相关决策向政府提出建议。利益相关方参与了PVE设计流程的多个阶段与决策环节。本研究的目标分为两点：其一，验证在制度化交通冲突场景中应用PVE的收益是否高于其成本；其二，开发一套工具，用于评估参与者所感知到的PVE表面效度（face validity）。我们在WeValuate软件系统中搭建了该PVE流程，并以半结构化访谈的方式采访了多位利益相关方，了解他们对PVE表面效度的看法。数据分析工作在STATA 16版本软件中完成。
研究结果表明，在制度化冲突场景中应用PVE，可带来与无此类冲突场景中类似的收益。那些通常不会参与相关事务的公民参与了本次研究，且PVE为决策制定提供了具有实用价值的成果。不过，二者存在一处显著差异：PVE的设计阶段需历经多轮反馈，这使得其耗时远多于其他案例。因此，过往研究中提出的"PVE对公职人员的时间投入要求较低"这一结论，在将PVE应用于制度化交通冲突场景时并不成立。此外，利益相关方无法就PVE的多项设计选择达成一致。为兼顾各方差异化的诉求，本次PVE的搭建过程极为冗长。最终，参与者对其表面效度的满意度相对较低。