This study explores perceived accessibility specific to air transportation in the Dutch context through a focus group study. Five focus group sessions were held with a total of 24 participants with air travel experience within the past five years. Online focus groups were held during the period that the COVID-19 pandemic travel restrictions were in effect, specifically around 12 months after the travel restrictions were implemented globally. In terms of the importance of activities accessible by flight, we observe that travelers particularly attach importance to visiting family and relatives, while the importance attached to the business and recreational activities accessible by flight varies among participants. As far as the transport component of accessibility is concerned, we find that, in addition to conventional variables in air transportation research, such as cost and travel times, unconventional variables such as uncertainty during flight schedule disruptions or the mood of staff and other passengers contribute to perceived accessibility by air transportation. Based on the results, we further discuss characteristics specific to perceived accessibility by air transportation, directions for further qualitative and quantitative research regarding perceived accessibility by air transportation, and implications for policy and planning.

Many countries use Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) as an ex-ante evaluation method to support transport decision-making. A critique on CBA is that it favours policies which produce easy to monetize impacts (e.g. travel time savings), whereas it disfavours policies which produce difficult to monetize impacts (e.g. minimum level of accessibility for people with a disability and environmental effects). Public willingness to pay (WTP) experiments have been introduced to value difficult to monetize policy impacts. This paper investigates how citizens of the Transport Authority Amsterdam value nine social impacts of transport policies through five Public WTP discrete choice experiments. In the experiments, respondents were asked to choose between transport policies, trading of social impacts against a uniform tax increase. We show that participants particularly value that people can reach key facilities within 15 min and assigned a relatively low value to preventing delays. This suggests that citizens prioritize accessibility over mobility. We also observe that participants assign a significant value to all the nine social impacts and identify Public WTP metrics for all the impacts. This suggests that the Public WTP approach has to potential to resolve the critique on CBA that not all impacts can be monetized.

Objective: In many countries, the incidence of skin cancer is growing rapidly, resulting in a substantive health and economic burden. While the wide range of available skin cancer prevention policies may have large individual and societal benefits, many countries still lack a policy strategy, and little is known about public preferences for collective prevention policy measures. We elicited these preferences using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in Austria, the Netherlands, and Spain to inform policy action. Methods: Respondents were asked to choose twelve times between two packages of different prevention policies. Each package was described by its estimated effectiveness and costs. Before and after the DCE, respondents were asked for their support for any policy action. We quota-sampled adult citizens in each of the countries from an online panel (N = 2,442). The choice data were analyzed using multinomial logit (MNL) and mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) models. Results: Almost all attributes significantly influenced respondents’ choices, with the tax attribute being most influential in each country. Among the six policy measures, information campaigns and a price reduction of sunscreen were the most preferred policy measures, and the prohibition of solar bed sales and solaria the least preferred. Preference structures were largely consistent across the countries. Finally, most respondents supported policy action, particularly after the DCE. Conclusions: Citizens in the three countries recommended their governments to take policy action against the increasing incidence of skin cancer. The results provide policymakers with directions for publicly supported policy action, which should be complemented with additional information on preference heterogeneity, citizens' argumentation, and policies’ relative (cost-)effectiveness. The suggestion that preferences for policy action adapted over the course of completing the DCE survey should be further examined.

Background: The outbreak of COVID-19 was followed by an unprecedented package of measures to protect public health. Over 150 countries mandated school closures to reduce the risk of transmission. Decisions on whether to close schools involve trade-offs between important effects on public health, learning outcomes, well-being of children, productivity of parents. Objectives: Investigate Peruvian citizens’ preferences for schools opening during a public-health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic in two scenarios: (i) when the threat from COVID-19 is low and schools are open; and, (ii) when the threat from COVID-19 is high and schools are closed. Methods: We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) from 22 September to 17 October 2022, on which 2007 respondents assessed which policy measures to implement in the two scenarios. (i) In Scenario 1 “Schools are open”, children go to school, teachers and parents go to their jobs, but children still experience learning deficits from previous school closures. (ii) In Scenario 2 “Schools are closed”, children cannot go to school and do not receive any formal teaching, leading to learning losses; many teachers must change careers; and, many parents have to stay at home to take care of their children and lose income. Respondents were shown a range of policy measures in each of the scenarios and received information about the effects of each measure on public health, children's well-being and learning loss. Results: We found that most respondents in Scenario 1 preferred mandatory vaccination for teachers and quarantine measures. In Scenario 2 we found that most respondents were positive towards reopening school policies. In both Scenarios respondents prioritized mandatory vaccination and quarantine measures over other mitigation measures. In Scenario 2, most respondents from the Highland region selected opening schools with 100% on-location teaching while hybrid teaching was mostly selected in the Coast region. Most respondents (82%) evaluated PVE as a good method to involve citizens in policy decision-making. Conclusions: Policies that focus on prevention (e.g. mandatory vaccination for teachers and quarantine measures) can count on substantial support in a scenario when schools are open. The strong preference for opening schools with a noticeable difference in the way classes are provided (e.g. teaching on location most preferred by respondents from the Highlands and hybrid teaching by respondents from the Coast) show the importance of introducing differentiated strategies among regions.

Bert van Wee, professor in Transport Policy at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands, faculty Technology, Policy and Management, is retiring. Given his large contributions to EJTIR as Editor-in-Chief, editorial board member, author and reviewer, this Editorial Note is dedicated to his work for EJTIR. Over 25 years, van Wee published 18 papers and 1 book review in EJTIR covering a wide range of topics from road pricing to urban rail transport, vehicle automation and port throughput. What his studies have in common is that they explore how transport policies affect land-use and travel behaviour, as well as the economic and wider societal impacts of those policies. Bert van Wee’s generalist view on the transport system is rare, but, given the rising complexity of the system, increasingly needed to indeed be able to address the future challenges.

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. 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 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.

Several studies examined what drives citizens’ support for COVID-19 measures, but no works have addressed how the effects of these drivers are distributed at the individual level. Yet, if significant differences in support are present but not accounted for, policymakers’ interpretations could lead to misleading decisions. In this study, we use XGBoost, a supervised machine learning model, combined with SHAP (Shapley Additive eXplanations) to identify the factors associated with differences in policy support for COVID-19 measures and how such differences are distributed across different citizens and measures. We use secondary data from a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) experiment, in which 1,888 Dutch citizens answered which COVID-19 measures should be imposed under four risk scenarios. We identified considerable heterogeneity in citizens’ support for different COVID-19 measures regarding different age groups, the weight given to citizens’ opinions and the perceived risk of getting sick of COVID-19. Data analysis methods employed in previous studies do not reveal such heterogeneity of policy support. Policymakers can use our results to tailor measures further to increase support for specific citizens/measures.

Since the 1940’s, job evaluation methods are being used to establish the relative value of jobs within organizations in order to determine salaries. Job evaluation methods have been studied, but there has not been much systematic reflection on the research conducted so far. This scoping review of 199 articles demonstrates that topics changed over decades, starting with methodological questions in the 1940’s, reflecting a start-up period. Historic overviews on wage policies appeared in the 1960’s, and the topic of gender wage inequality in the 1980’s. Guidelines were published in the 1990’s. From 2000 onwards, the main topic was adapting job evaluation methods to specific contexts. Research declined since 2010. There was hardly any research on appending changes in job evaluation methods and criteria. Given the ever-changing nature of work and the upcoming demographic changes, we recommend to revive scientific research on job evaluation and propose an agenda with research questions.

Participatory value evaluation (PVE) is a novel method aiming at the evaluation of projects from a societal perspective. It aims at establishing which investment projects or investment portfolios (with a portfolio containing multiple investment projects) are likely to be favored by the population, given a limited budget. The approach emulates the decision-making problem faced by policy-makers. The ultimate end of PVE is to evaluate and establish how individuals value attributes of public projects in order to construct social trade-offs between different attributes and investments projects. However, it is important to consider that when investment portfolios consist of more than one investment project, significant synergies (positive and negative) may exist among the projects. This paper proposes a new evaluation framework that allows addressing synergies among projects in the context of PVE, while also offering a highly flexible structure. The approach is tested making use of one synthetic and two real datasets. Results show that neglecting synergies among the utilities of the projects included in the chosen portfolio majorly reduces the model fit and biases the estimators.

Objective: Increasing healthcare expenditures require governments to make difficult prioritization decisions. Considering public preferences can help raise citizens’ support. Previous research has predominantly elicited preferences for the allocation of public resources towards specific treatments or patient groups and principles for resource allocation. This study contributes by examining public preferences for budget allocation over various healthcare purposes in the Netherlands. Methods: We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) choice experiment in which 1408 respondents were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget over eight healthcare purposes: general practice and other easily accessible healthcare, hospital care, elderly care, disability care, mental healthcare, preventive care by encouragement, preventive care by discouragement, and new and better medicines. A default expenditure was set for each healthcare purpose, based on current expenditures. Respondents could adjust these default expenditures using sliders and were presented with the implications of their adjustments on health and well-being outcomes, the economy, and the healthcare premium. As a constraint, the maximum increase in the mandatory healthcare premium for adult citizens was €600 per year. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Latent Class Cluster Analysis (LCCA). Results: On average, respondents preferred to increase total expenditures on all healthcare purposes, but especially on elderly care, new and better medicines, and mental healthcare. Three preference clusters were identified. The largest cluster preferred modest increases in expenditures, the second a much higher increase of expenditures, and the smallest favouring a substantial reduction of the healthcare premium by decreasing the expenditure on all healthcare purposes. The analyses also demonstrated substantial preference heterogeneity between clusters for budget allocation over different healthcare purposes. Conclusions: The results of this choice experiment show that most citizens in the Netherlands support increasing healthcare expenditures. However, substantial heterogeneity was identified in preferences for healthcare purposes to prioritize. Considering these preferences may increase public support for prioritization decisions.

Background: The stage of the pandemic significantly affects people’s preferences for (the societal impacts of) COVID-19 policies. No discrete choice experiments were conducted when the COVID-19 pandemic was in a transition phase. Objectives: This is the first study to empirically investigate how citizens weigh the key societal impacts of pandemic policies when the COVID-19 pandemic transitions into an endemic. Methods: We performed two discrete choice experiments among 2181 Dutch adults that included six attributes: COVID-19 deaths, physical health problems, mental health problems, financial problems, surgery delays and the degree to which individual liberties are restricted. We used latent class choice models to identify heterogeneous preferences for the impacts of COVID-19 measures across different groups of respondents. Results: A large majority of the participants in this study was willing to accept deaths to avoid that citizens experience physical complaints, mental health issues, financial problems and the postponement of surgeries. The willingness to tolerate COVID-19 deaths to avoid these societal impacts differed substantially between participants. When participants were provided with information about the stringency of COVID-19 measures, they assigned relatively less value to preventing the postponement of non-urgent surgeries for 1–3 months across all classes. Conclusions: Having gone through a pandemic, most Dutch citizens clearly prefer pandemic policies that consider citizens’ financial situations, physical problems, mental health problems and individual liberties, alongside the effects on excess mortality and pressure on healthcare.

The need for engaging citizens in climate policymaking is increasingly recognised. Despite indications that the form of expert involvement can strongly influence participatory processes, this remains scarcely researched. We analysed two unique and contrasting cases of citizen engagement in national climate mitigation policy: (1) the Irish Citizens’ Assembly (ICA), the first national climate assembly involving live expert presentations and face-to-face deliberations; and (2) the Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) on Dutch climate policymaking, where more than 10,000 citizens compared policy options in an online environment based on expert-based information on policy effects. Taking a dramaturgical approach, we found that the opening up and closing down of policy options and perspectives was influenced by the setting, staging and scripting of expertise. Apart from providing information on policy options, experts had significant roles in design choices and formulating recommendations, which shaped citizens’ deliberations and policy advice. In deliberative processes, citizens’ deliberations can be further influenced by putting experts in a privileged spot and emphasising their authority, whereas in the setting of an online tool, experts’ design choices may be masked by the fact-like presentation of expertise. Future research should further investigate the role of experts and expertise across a wider range of practices. Nevertheless, we conclude that the high degree of required technical knowledge in climate mitigation policy naturally implies strong expert involvement, which concomitantly steers the results. Alternatively, we may search to enhance citizens’ engagement in guiding climate policymakers by focusing on citizens’ normative perspectives.

In this article, the affiliation details for author Jose Ignacio Hernandez were incorrectly given as ‘Center of Economics for Sustainable Development (CEDES), Faculty of Economics and Government, Universidad San Sebastian, Lientur 1457, Concepción, Chile ' but should have been ‘Center of Economics for Sustainable Development (CEDES), Faculty of Economics and Government, Universidad San Sebastian, Concepción, Chile. The affiliation ‘Transport and Logistics Group, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands’ for authors Jose Ignacio Hernandez and Niek Mouter was missing. The original article has been corrected.

The question of human control is a key concern in autonomous military systems debates. Our research qualitatively and quantitatively investigates values and concerns of the general public, as they relate to autonomous military systems, with particular attention to the value of human control. Using participatory value evaluation (PVE), we consulted 1980 Australians about which values matter in relation to two specific technologies: an autonomous minesweeping submarine and an autonomous drone that can drop bombs. Based on value sensitive design, participants were tasked to enhance the systems with design features that can realize values. A restriction (limited budget) in each design task forced participants to make trade-offs between design options and the values that these options realize. Our results suggest that the ‘general public’ has diverse and nuanced stances on the question of human control over autonomous military systems. A third of participants that is opposed to autonomous military systems when asked directly, selected different combinations of design features realizing varying degrees of human control. Several contextual factors, technology-specific concerns, and certain values seemed to explain these different choices. Our research shows that a focus on human control might overlook other important values that the general public is concerned about, such as system reliability, verifiability, and retrievability.

This paper presents a micro-econometric framework to analyse choice data from participatory value evaluation (PVE) surveys. In a PVE survey respondents receive, similar to stated choice surveys, information on the social impacts of public sector projects before choosing the best policy portfolio according to their preferences. Respondents’ choices are limited by governmental and private budget constraints. The PVE data format is characterised by a mixture of discrete and continuous choice data. Building on recent literature of Kuhn–Tucker models, particularly the MDCEV model, a range of methodological and econometric contributions are provided facilitating model estimation and policy evaluation. We derive a set of closed form choice probabilities explaining the choice for the optimal portfolio with public projects, private consumption levels and whether to spend the public budget in full or not. The proposed policy evaluation framework is centred around the notion of social welfare maximisation. The parameter estimates are used to derive the optimal public sector budget and the corresponding portfolio maximising social welfare, but also to rank the set of feasible portfolios given a restricted budget, including sensitivity analyses. The proposed framework is illustrated using an empirical example on urban mobility investments in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Objective: Here we investigate public preferences for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) certificates in the Netherlands, and whether these preferences differ between subgroups in the population. Methods: A survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to 1500 members of the adult population of the Netherlands. Each participant was asked to choose between hypothetical COVID-19 certificates that differed in seven attributes: the starting date, and whether the certificate allowed gathering with multiple people, shopping without appointment, visiting bars and restaurants, visiting cinemas and theatres, attending events, and practising indoor sports. Latent class models (LCMs) were used to determine the attribute relative importance and predicted acceptance rate of hypothetical certificates. Results: Three classes of preference patterns were identified in the LCM. One class a priori opposed a certificate (only two attributes influencing preferences), another class was relatively neutral and included all attributes in their decision making, and the final class was positive towards a certificate. Respondents aged > 65 years and those who plan to get vaccinated were more likely to belong to the latter two classes. Being allowed to shop without appointment and to visit bars and restaurants was most important to all respondents, increasing predicted acceptance rate by 12 percentage points. Conclusions: Preferences for introduction of a COVID-19 certificate are mixed. A certificate that allows for shopping without appointment and visiting bars and restaurants is likely to increase acceptance. The support of younger citizens and those who plan to get vaccinated seems most sensitive to the specific freedoms granted by a COVID-19 certificate.

While several governmental and research efforts are set upon mobility-as-a-service (MaaS), most of them are driven by individual travel behavior and potential usage. However, considering only individuals’ preferences carries the risk of neglecting societal benefits going beyond individual travel behavior. This study addresses the valuation of different features of MaaS-services from a social desirability perspective as compared to social investments in biking infrastructure and in public transport, and aims at eliciting trade-offs between different features of such projects. This analysis is conducted on the basis of Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE). In PVE-experiments, individuals select their preferred portfolio of government projects given a constrained public budget and societal preferences for (the impacts of) government projects can be determined based on these choices. The results show that the population of Rotterdam exhibits a willingness to allocate public resources to all types of investment projects considered in the analysis. However, the willingness to allocate resources to bike infrastructure projects and public transport seems to be higher than the willingness to dedicate resources to MaaS subsidies. Within the different types of MaaS subsidies considered, subsidies aimed at sustainability exhibit a larger social valuation. Strong negative synergies among similar projects exist, signalizing that individuals prefer diversifying the use of public resources across different types of investment projects.

Participatory value evaluation (PVE) has recently been introduced in the field of health as a new method to elicit stated preferences for public policies. PVE is a method in which respondents in a choice experiment are presented with various policy options and their attributes, and are asked to compose their portfolio of preference given a public-resource constraint. This paper aims to illustrate PVE’s potential for informing healthcare decision making and to position it relative to established preference-elicitation methods. We first describe PVE and its theoretical background. Next, by means of a narrative review of the eight existing PVE applications within and outside the health domain, we illustrate the different implementations of the main features of the method. We then compare PVE to several established preference-elicitation methods in terms of the structure and nature of the choice tasks presented to respondents. The portfolio-based choice task in a PVE requires respondents to consider a set of policy alternatives in relation to each other and to make trade-offs subject to one or more constraints, which more closely resembles decision making by policymakers. When using a flexible budget constraint, respondents can trade-off their private income with public expenditures. Relative to other methods, a PVE may be cognitively more demanding and is less efficient; however, it seems a promising complementary method for the preference-based assessment of health policies. Further research into the feasibility and validity of the method is required before researchers and policymakers can fully appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of the PVE as a preference-elicitation method.

Een cruciale vraag in het brede welvaart debat is: hoe maak je als overheid keuzes in lijn met het brede welvaartsperspectief? Hierop proberen we een antwoord op te formuleren. Dat doen we door een set van concrete criteria voor het maken en beoordelen van mobiliteitsbeleid in lijn met het brede welvaartsperspectief te formuleren. Deze criteria verdelen we in drie categorieën: (1) Breder kijken naar opgaven en doelen van mobiliteitsbeleid; (2) Breder kijken naar effecten van mobiliteitsbeleid; en (3) Effecten van mobiliteitsbeleid breder afwegen. Vervolgens stellen we dat om aan deze criteria te voldoen, beleidsmakers zich niet langer kunnen beperken tot ‘marktmakers’ die ingrijpen indien er marktfalen onstaan, zoals knelpunten in het verkeer of een tekort aan woningen. Het brede welvaartsperspectief impliceert namelijk dat de overheid als taak heeft om ‘alles wat mensen van waarde vinden’ te bevorderen. Dit betekent dat de overheid ook de rol heeft van publieke ‘waardemaker’.

We kunnen de keuzes van de overheid als waardemaker niet op dezelfde manier coördineren en beoordelen als de keuzes van de overheid als marktmaker. Hiervoor is een andere aanpak nodig, die recht doet aan het politieke proces waarin burgers en hun vertegenwoordigers gezamenlijk bepalen wat waardevol is om te produceren in de publieke sector. De Participatieve Waarde Evaluatie (PWE) lijkt hiervoor een geschikte aanpak. Wat we nog niet weten, is in hoeverre PWE voldoet aan de brede welvaart criteria. Dit verkennen we aan de hand van een casus: De PWE over de Lelylijn. We reflecteren op ontwerpkeuzes, hoofdresultaten en interviews met betrokken beleidsmakers.

We constateren dat PWE een geschikte aanpak is om beleidsmakers te ondersteunen in het maken en legitimeren van waardegedreven keuzes. De PWE heeft een breed publiek weten te bereiken van ruim 11.000 deelnemers. Dit leverde nieuwe, bruikbare inzichten op voor beleidsmakers over hoe burgers publieke waarden afwegen met betrekking tot de Lelylijn en heeft ertoe geleid dat de doelen van dit project worden herzien. We denken dat PWE ook kan bijdragen aan het maken van mobiliteitsbeleid dat voldoet aan de 8 brede welvaart criteria, maar zien hierbij een aantal uitdagingen. Op basis van de inzichten uit deze casus en eerder uitgevoerde PWEs lijkt het mogelijk om met deze aanpak (1) doelen, opgaven en (2) effecten van mobiliteit breder te bekijken en (3) af te wegen. De vraag is of dit allemaal tegelijkertijd kan in één PWE, of dat er meerdere PWEs en andere methoden voor nodig zijn.

We propose three procedures based on association rules (AR) learning and random forests (RF) to support the specification of a portfolio choice model applied in data from complex choice experiment data, specifically a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) choice experiment. In a PVE choice experiment, respondents choose a combination of alternatives, subject to a resource constraint. We combine a methodological-iterative (MI) procedure with AR learning and RF models to support the specification of parameters of a portfolio choice model. Additionally, we use RF model predictions to contrast the validity of the behavioural assumptions of different specifications of the portfolio choice model. We use data of a PVE choice experiment conducted to elicit the preferences of Dutch citizens for lifting COVID-19 measures. Our results show model fit and interpretation improvements in the portfolio choice model, compared with conventional model specifications. Additionally, we provide guidelines on the use of outcomes from AR learning and RF models from a choice modelling perspective.