Political representation is responsible for choices regarding the supply and the management of transport infrastructure, but its decisions are sometimes in conflict with the will and the general interest expressed by citizens. This situation has progressively prompted the use of specific corrective measures in order to obtain socially sustainable decisions, such as the deliberative procedures for the appraisal of public goods. The standard Stated Choice Modelling Technique (SCMT) can be used to estimate the community appreciation for public goods such as transport infrastructure; but the application of the SCMT in its standard form would be inadequate to provide an estimation that expresses the general interest of the affected community. Hence the need to adapt the standard SCMT on the basis of the operational conditions imposed by deliberative appraisal procedures. Therefore, the general aim of the paper is to outline the basic conditions on which a modified SCMT with deliberative procedure can be set up. Firstly, the elements of the standard SCMT on which to make the necessary adjustments are identified; subsequently, modifications and additions to make to the standard technique are indicated; finally, the contents of an extensive program of experimentation are outlined.

1. Abelson, R. P. (1986). Beliefs Are Like Possessions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 16(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1986.tb00078.x
2. Ackerman, B., Fishkin, J. S., (2008). Deliberation Day. Yale University Press, New Haven.
3. Adamowicz, V., Boxall, P. (2001). Future directions of stated choice methods for environment valuation. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266161818 (accessed on 3 May 2023).
4. Allegretti, U. (2010). Participatory Democracy (Italian). Firenze University Press. https://doi.org/10.36253/978-88-8453-548-1
5. Álvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N., Barberán, R., et al. (2007). Choice modeling at the “market stall”: Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 743–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.01.009
6. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., et al. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques. Elgaronline.
7. Bobbio, L. (2002). Deliberative arenas (Italian). Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche. p. 3.
8. Bohman, J. (2000). Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. MIT Press.
9. Bradley, R. A., & El-Helbawy, A. T. (1976). Treatment contrasts in paired comparisons: Basic procedures with application to factorials. Biometrika, 63(2), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/63.2.255
10. Burgess, L., & Street, D. J. (2003). Optimal Designs for 2kChoice Experiments. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 32(11), 2185–2206. https://doi.org/10.1081/sta-120024475
11. Cohen, J. (2010). Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199581498.003.0002
12. Competition Commission. (2010). Review of stated preference and willingness to pay methods. White Paper.
13. Domencich, T. A., McFadden, D. (1975). Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis. North-Holland Publishing Company Limited.
14. Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive Democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139173810
15. Eber, N., & Willinger, M. (2005). Experimental economics (French). Repères. https://doi.org/10.3917/dec.eber.2005.01
16. Elster, J. (editor). (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139175005
17. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press.
18. Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy. Yale University Press.
19. Floridia, A., De Sanctis, S. (2017). From participation to deliberation: a critical genealogy of deliberative democracy. Colchester: ECPR Press.
20. Fung, A., Wright, E. O., Abers, R. (2003). Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso.
21. Gbikpi, B. (2005). From the theory of participatory democracy to deliberative democracy: what possible continuities (Italian)? Società editrice Il Mulino S.p.A., 1, 97–130. https://doi.org/10.1425/19636
22. Gregory, R., Wellman, K. (2001). Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00214-2
23. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. Polity. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
24. Hancock, T. O., Broekaert, J., Hess, S., et al. (2020). Quantum choice models: A flexible new approach for understanding moral decision-making. Journal of Choice Modelling, 37, 100235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100235
25. Heller, P., & Rao, V. (2015). Deliberation and Development: Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0501-1
26. Hernandez, J. I., van Cranenburgh, S., Chorus, C., et al. (2023). Data-driven assisted model specification for complex choice experiments data: Association rules learning and random forests for Participatory Value Evaluation experiments. Journal of Choice Modelling, 46, 100397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100397
27. Hess, S., & Daly, A. (editor). (2014). Handbook of Choice Modelling. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781003152
28. Hindriks J., Myles G. D. (2006). Intermediate public economics. The MIT Press.
29. Hu, M., & Shealy, T. (2023). Priming the public to construct preferences for sustainable design: A discrete choice model for green infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 88, 102005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102005
30. James R. F., Blamey R. K. (2005). Deliberation and economic valuation: national park management. In: Getzner, M., Spash, C. L., & Stagl, S. (editors). Alternatives for Environmental Valuation. Routledge.
31. Jiang, N., Ao, C., Xu, L., et al. (2023). Will information interventions affect public preferences and willingness to pay for air quality improvement? An empirical study based on deliberative choice experiment. Science of The Total Environment, 868, 161436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161436
32. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348. https://doi.org/10.1086/261737
33. Kassahun, H. T., Swait, J., & Jacobsen, J. B. (2021). Distortions in willingness-to-pay for public goods induced by endemic distrust in institutions. Journal of Choice Modelling, 39, 100271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100271
34. Lancaster, K. (1971). Consumer demand: a new approach. Columbia University Press.
35. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157. https://doi.org/10.1086/259131
36. Lienhoop, N., & MacMillan, D. (2007). Valuing wilderness in Iceland: Estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy, 24(1), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.07.001
37. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., Swait, J. D., et al. (2000). Stated Choice Methods. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511753831
38. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. Wiley.
39. Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2005). Effect of Experimental Design on Choice‐Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(3), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00761.x
40. Macmillan, D. C., Philip, L., Hanley N., Alvarez, F. B. (2002). Valuing the nonmarket benefits of wild goose conservation: A comparison of interview and group-based approaches. Ecological Economics, 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00182-9
41. McFadden, D. (2014). The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being. In: Handbook of Choice Modelling. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781003152.00007
42. Miccoli, S., Finucci, F., & Murro, R. (2014). A Monetary Measure of Inclusive Goods: The Concept of Deliberative Appraisal in the Context of Urban Agriculture. Sustainability, 6(12), 9007–9026. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6129007
43. Miccoli, S., Finucci, F., & Murro, R. (2015). Measuring Shared Social Appreciation of Community Goods: An Experiment for the East Elevated Expressway of Rome. Sustainability, 7(11), 15194–15218. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71115194
44. Miccoli, S., Finucci, F., Murro, R. (2023). Deliberative Estimated Value—Civic Estimate Experiments (Italian). Available online: https://www.ubiklibri.it/book-9788835137115-valore-di-stima-deliberativo-sperimentazioni-di-estimo-civico.html (accessed on 3 May 2023).
45. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511720444
46. Pearce D., Ozdemiroglu E. Day, B., et al. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques—Summary Guide. Edword Elgar Publishing.
47. Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G. S., & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Scenario Planning: a Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x
48. Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Democratic legitimacy. Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity (French). Editions du Seuil, Paris.
49. Rosanvallon, P. (2014). Counter-democracy - politics in the age of mistrust (French). Éditions du Seuil, Paris.
50. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/260169
51. Saarikoski, H., Aapala, K., Artell, J., et al. (2022). Multimethod valuation of peatland ecosystem services: Combining choice experiment, multicriteria decision analysis and deliberative valuation. Ecosystem Services, 57, 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101471
52. Sagoff, M. (1998). Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00144-4
53. Sándor, Z., & Wedel, M. (2002). Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models. Marketing Science, 21(4), 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.21.4.455.131
54. Satu, H. (2004). Role-Playing: A Narrative Experience and a Mindset. In: Markus, M. E., & Stenros, J. (editors). Beyond Role and Play: Tools, Toys and Theory for Harnessing the Imagination. Ropecon ry, Helsinki
55. Schoon, R., & Chi, C. (2022). Integrating Citizens Juries and Discrete Choice Experiments: Methodological issues in the measurement of public values in healthcare priority setting. Social Science & Medicine, 309, 115223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115223
56. Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2012). Games, Learning, and Society. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139031127
57. Stiglitz, J. E. (1986). Economics of the Public Sector, Second Edition. Norton & Co.
58. Thurstone, L. L. (1994). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 101(2), 266–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.266
59. Tychsen, A. (2006). Role Playing Games—Comparative Analysis Across Two Media Platforms. In: Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 3rd Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment; Australia.
60. Tychsen, A., Hitchens, M., Brolund, T., et al. (2006). Live Action Role-Playing Games. Games and Culture, 1(3), 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412006290445
61. Urama, K. C., & Hodge, I. (2006). Participatory Environmental Education and Willingness to Pay for River Basin Management: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria. Land Economics, 82(4), 542–561. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.82.4.542
62. van Cranenburgh, S., Wang, S., Vij, A., et al. (2022). Choice modelling in the age of machine learning - Discussion paper. Journal of Choice Modelling, 42, 100340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100340
63. Ward, H. (1999). Citizens’ juries and valuing the environment: A proposal. Environmental Politics, 8(2), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019908414462