*4.3. Value Causing Assessment (VCA)*

It is acknowledged in the study on methodology development that the problem structuring methods (PSM) [63] are appropriate to apply in structuring the values and in assisting planners and involved stakeholders. The inclusion of goals and objectives as evaluation criteria and the weighting given to these criteria adjust the quantitative scheme of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to the needs of planning. However, such quantitative methods and the multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and ordinal ranking methods still use a broad scheme of CBA. PSM represents an alternative set of methods developed to address similar concerns in the operation research field. These methods were developed to address situations where there is no single objective to be achieved and where parameters are contested [63]. The widely used quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods require that all dimensions be valued in ordinal terms. Both the valuation and weighting are sensitive to the identity of those performing the tasks. Feitelson (2011) pointed out that an "evaluation process in a communicative setting aims to utilize expertise to raise issues that can be easily described to a relatively wide audience" [64]. PSM makes progress in this direction by engaging experts and stakeholders and by seeking to understand better their perceptions of the issues at hand and of the options for addressing them. The method based on MCDA has been proposed by Feitelson's distinguished study. The method can also be applied for the VCA to the extent that professionals evaluate alternatives according to criteria that are partially derived from the objectives. These objectives can be determined either from existing plans and policy documents or in a collaborative process. The experts are asked to rationalise their evaluation in reporting the outcome. These rationalisations are summarised by criteria and form building blocks of the VCA whose outcomes are a set of values that can be easily understood and discussed by non-experts and people who have not previously engaged in the planning process. For instance, the alternatives (trade-offs of values) are designed/described with main features and evaluated by experts (see step 1.5 in Table 2).

**Table 2.** Steps of VCA.


**Table 2.** *Cont.*


The VCA is proposed based on the identified "gap between post-modernist planning theory (communicative collaboration) and largely modernist planning practice (rationaltechnocratic process)" [64]. Thus, in the light of the advanced systematic qualitative approach for evaluating planning alternatives, as is emphasised by Feitelson (2011), VCA will also lead to the identification of particular values that should be deliberated by stakeholders rather than to choose among the alternative options. Accordingly, the VCA uses the expertise of professionals to focus stakeholder deliberations on spatial planning and local development. To employ VCA, various known evaluation techniques have been reviewed [18,27]. Evaluation techniques, represented through case studies and the outcome of applied research, are considered relevant for the VLP approach. At the same time, the advantages of qualitative evaluation methods for VLP over some widely used quantitative ones (e.g., MCDA, CBA) should be considered. For instance, CBA often does not address all the facets of complex tasks with multiple externalities and wide-ranging distributional implications due to democratic decision-making and orientation towards consensus, and it also does not reflect social welfare preferences or assure quality among all involved stakeholders. In this respect, for instance, it is suggested that to facilitate and set the agenda for discussions in spatial planning, a qualitative yet systematic method is necessary. However, the effective combination of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in communicative planning is encouraged, especially where there is a need to process gathered data sets. From the discursive perspective of planning practice, the deliberation process and decision-making focus on using mainly qualitative evaluation methods. The application of VCA should be based on the philosophy that policy for the people needs policy with the people. Hereafter, the steps from 1.1 to 3.5 of VCA are subsequently proposed in Table 2.
