Incorporating stakeholders’ knowledge in group decision-making

International audienc

Acting and Modeling the Future of Dams: Knowledge Production Processes in Sustainability Science

Sustainability scientists are developing new knowledge production processes (KPPs) based on findings that science has a greater impact on decision-making when it (1) adopts an interdisciplinary systems approach, and (2) is participatory and, therefore, perceived as more salient, legitimate, and credible by users. This presentation will discuss the findings from a review of the literature on the intersection of two KPP methods: systems dynamics (SD) and role-play simulations (RPS). SD is a powerful approach for modeling dynamic, complex systems to improve understanding of system behaviors in coupled social-ecological systems. It can capture complex biophysical phenomena and trade-offs, while also representing feedbacks and thresholds from social and institutional systems. It incorporates both qualitative and quantitative information. Unlike static models, SD is explicitly dynamic. It is well suited to group modeling efforts and informing consensus-based decisions. RPSs are experiential, scenario-based tools that help participants learn about how science is used in policy-making decisions, learn about others\u27 preferences and priorities regarding a public policy decision, develop and evaluate innovative options for addressing critical challenges, and contribute to building consensus among diverse and interdependent stakeholders. Although both approaches aim to improve the basis for decision-making, they are rarely discussed together. This presentation considers the literature on each method and their intersection by analyzing: (1) each method\u27s objectives and functions, (2) the steps in their processes for incorporating participation and interdisciplinary, systems-based knowledge, (3) approaches for evaluating outcomes, (4) strengths and weaknesses, (5) opportunities and challenges for integrations, and identifies recommendations for future research. A version of the presentation with an attached transcript can be found here

Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning

Forest planning in a participatory context often involves multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests. A promising approach for handling these complex situations is to integrate participatory planning and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The objective of this paper is to analyze strengths and weaknesses of such an integrated approach, focusing on how the use of MCDA has influenced the participatory process. The paper outlines a model for a participatory MCDA process with five steps: stakeholder analysis, structuring of the decision problem, generation of alternatives, elicitation of preferences, and ranking of alternatives. This model was applied in a case study of a planning process for the urban forest in Lycksele, Sweden. In interviews with stakeholders, criteria for four different social groups were identified. Stakeholders also identified specific areas important to them and explained what activities the areas were used for and the forest management they wished for there. Existing forest data were combined with information from interviews to create a map in which the urban forest was divided into zones of different management classes. Three alternative strategic forest plans were produced based on the zonal map. The stakeholders stated their preferences individually by the Analytic Hierarchy Process in inquiry forms and a ranking of alternatives and consistency ratios were determined for each stakeholder. Rankings of alternatives were aggregated; first, for each social group using the arithmetic mean, and then an overall aggregated ranking was calculated from the group rankings using the weighted arithmetic mean. The participatory MCDA process in Lycksele is assessed against five social goals: incorporating public values into decisions, improving the substantive quality of decisions, resolving conflict among competing interests, building trust in institutions, and educating and informing the public. The results and assessment of the case study support the integration of participatory planning and MCDA as a viable option for handling complex forest-management situations. Key issues related to the MCDA methodology that need to be explored further were identified: 1) The handling of place-specific criteria, 2) development of alternatives, 3) the aggregation of individual preferences into a common preference, and 4) application and evaluation of the integrated approach in real case studies

The ECOSENSUS Project: Co-Evolving Tools, Practices and Open Content for Participatory Natural Resource Management

ECOSENSUS (Electronic/Ecological Collaborative Sensemaking Support System)[www.ecosensus.info] is an ESRC e-Social Science pilot project, using a Participatory Action Research methodology to evolve tools and work practices for collaborative work in environmental and natural resource management between a European-based team, and stakeholders involved in the region of concern, the North Rupununi District of Guyana. To promote long term capacity building in the region and beyond, the project's outputs will be disseminated as open source learning resources. Given the disparities in knowledge and power in such a project, central to our work are issues of stakeholder empowerment in the geographical modelling, interpretation and decision making practices that constitute environmental management. We argue that in e-Science, such factors have yet to receive much attention. This paper reports work accomplished to date: progress towards an environment which integrates GIS modelling with participatory deliberation about the implications of the models, and reactions from the indigenous Amerindians to this tool

Multiple criteria decision analysis with consideration to place-specific values in participatory forest planning

The combination of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and participatory planning is an approach that has been applied in complex planning situations where multiple criteria of very different natures are considered, and several stakeholders or social groups are involved. The spatial character of forest planning problems adds further to the complexity, because a large number of forest stands are to be assigned different treatments at different points in time. In addition, experience from participatory forest planning indicates that stakeholders may think about the forest in terms of place-specific values rather than in forest-wide terms. The objective of this study was to present an approach for including place-specific values in MCDA-based participatory forest planning and illustrate the approach by a case study where the objective was to choose a multipurpose forest plan for an area of urban forest in northern Sweden. Stakeholder values were identified in interviews, and maps were used to capture place-specific spatial values. The nonspatial and nonplace-specific spatial values were formulated as criteria and used to build an objective hierarchy describing the decision situation. The place-specific spatial values were included in the creation of a map showing zones of different silvicultural management classes, which was used as the basis for creation of forest plan alternatives in the subsequent process. The approach seemed to work well for capturing place-specific values, and the study indicates that formalized methods for including and evaluating place-specific values in participatory forest planning processes should be developed and tested further

Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention for low risk prostate cancer patients.

ObjectivesDevelopment and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention to help men with early-stage prostate cancer choose among active surveillance, surgery, and radiation.MethodsWe developed a decision aid featuring long-term survival and side effects data, based on focus group input and stakeholder endorsement. We trained premedical students to administer the intervention to newly diagnosed men with low-risk prostate cancer seen at the University of California, San Francisco. Before the intervention, and after the consultation with a urologist, we administered the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer (DQI-PC). We hypothesized increases in two knowledge items from the DQI-PC: How many men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: "Most will die of something else" and "A little or not at all."ResultsThe development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers. In our pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed knowledge surveys at both timepoints. Regarding the two knowledge items of interest, before the intervention, 35/56 (63%) answered both correctly, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the medical consultation (P = .04 by chi-square test).ConclusionsThe intervention was associated with increased patient knowledge. Data from this pilot have guided the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer being treated in community settings

Risk Management in the Arctic Offshore: Wicked Problems Require New Paradigms

Recent project-management literature and high-profile disasters—the financial crisis, the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the Fukushima nuclear accident—illustrate the flaws of traditional risk models for complex projects. This research examines how various groups with interests in the Arctic offshore define risks. The findings link the wicked problem framework and the emerging paradigm of Project Management of the Second Order (PM-2). Wicked problems are problems that are unstructured, complex, irregular, interactive, adaptive, and novel. The authors synthesize literature on the topic to offer strategies for navigating wicked problems, provide new variables to deconstruct traditional risk models, and integrate objective and subjective schools of risk analysis

Effective engagement of conservation scientists with decision-makers

This chapter offers advice on how the conservation science community can effectively engage with decision-makers. The rationales for why we, as scientists, need to do this have been widely discussed in the literature. Often, the reasons offered are normative, pragmatic, or instrumental (de Vente, 2016); in other words, there is a belief that engaging with decision-makers leads to better informed, more acceptable decisions. Indeed, better engagement may lead to the greater uptake of evidence for conservation decisions, something which some scholars argue is a priority for effective management (e.g. Gardner et al., 2018; Sutherland and Wordley, 2017)