IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v83y2019icp282-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating a collaborative decision-analytic approach to inform conservation decision-making in transboundary regions

Author

Listed:
  • Mattsson, Brady J.
  • Arih, Andrej
  • Heurich, Marco
  • Santi, Stefano
  • Štemberk, Josef
  • Vacik, Harald

Abstract

Conservation decision-making in transboundary regions presents considerable challenges for protected area managers working in countries with differing languages, laws, and cultures. Collaborative decision analysis has informed real-world conservation decisions in non-transboundary contexts. Here we evaluate for the first time its application in two transboundary regions in Europe: Julian Alps along the Italian–Slovenian border, and the Bavarian–Bohemian Forest along the German–Czech border. A collaborative-decision analysis (CDA) led to bilateral agreements about multi-year resource allocations by protected areas (PAs) in these two transboundary regions of Europe. Steps included problem framing, formulation of objectives, consideration of external factors, alternative strategies, consequences and tradeoffs, sensitivity analysis, and recommendations. In collaboration with stakeholders we developed Bayesian decision networks to structure and support problem solving in two cases focused on bear management and a joint communication strategy. Expected stakeholder satisfaction differed by >10% when comparing allocation options. Although the preferred option in one case depended on the set of stakeholder inputs used for the analysis, expected value of perfect information was low (i.e., ≤5% increase in expected stakeholder satisfaction; possible range: 0–100%). Decision making was successfully supported in both case studies. Each step of the CDA process was informative and useful for the decision makers, and the expected challenges with transboundary conservation were overcome in both cases. For example, to overcome the language barrier we used translation software so that the respective management plans were understandable for all participants. We believe the process can be used in other transboundary contexts around the globe to ensure lasting engagement and commitment to coordinated conservation and management on both sides of the border.

Suggested Citation

  • Mattsson, Brady J. & Arih, Andrej & Heurich, Marco & Santi, Stefano & Štemberk, Josef & Vacik, Harald, 2019. "Evaluating a collaborative decision-analytic approach to inform conservation decision-making in transboundary regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 282-296.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:83:y:2019:i:c:p:282-296
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718308913
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.040?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    2. Lawrence Phillips & Carlos Bana e Costa, 2007. "Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 51-68, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & De Rosa, Salvatore Paolo, 2020. "Use of fuzzy cognitive maps to develop policy strategies for the optimization of municipal waste management: A case study of the land of fires (Italy)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. de Castro-Pardo, Mónica & Pérez-Rodríguez, Fernando & Martín-Martín, José María & Azevedo, João C., 2019. "Modelling stakeholders’ preferences to pinpoint conflicts in the planning of transboundary protected areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    2. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    3. Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Montibeller, Gilberto & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2017. "Modelling multicriteria value interactions with Reasoning Maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1054-1071.
    4. Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan, 2011. "Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 362-372, June.
    5. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Gilberto Montibeller, 2015. "Probability Elicitation Under Severe Time Pressure: A Rank‐Based Method," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1317-1335, July.
    6. Angelis, A. & Linch, M. & Montibeller, G. & Molina-Lopez, T. & Zawada, A. & Orzel, K. & Arickx, F. & Espin, J. & Kanavos, P., 2020. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    7. Vieira, Ana C.L. & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2020. "Enhancing knowledge construction processes within multicriteria decision analysis: The Collaborative Value Modelling framework," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Timothy McDaniels, 2021. "Four Decades of Transformation in Decision Analytic Practice for Societal Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 491-502, March.
    9. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Vieira, Ana C.L. & Freitas, Liliana & Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Bana e Costa, João & Freitas, Ângela & Santana, Paula, 2023. "Collaborative development of composite indices from qualitative value judgements: The EURO-HEALTHY Population Health Index model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 475-492.
    10. Khannoussi, Arwa & Meyer, Patrick & Chaubet, Aurore, 2023. "A multi-criteria decision aiding approach for upgrading public sewerage systems and its application to the city of Brest," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    11. Barbara Bini & Milena Vainieri & Sabina Nuti, 2015. "Definizione delle priorit? di intervento in sanit?: approcci socio-tecnici a confronto," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(93), pages 49-73.
    12. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    13. Etienne Rouwette & Ingrid Bastings & Hans Blokker, 2011. "A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 781-803, November.
    14. Hugo Herrera & Nuno Videira & Hubert P.L.M. Korzilius & Kathya Lorena Cordova‐Pozo & Marleen H.F. McCardle‐Keurentjes, 2022. "Reflecting on factors influencing long‐lasting organisational effects of group model‐building interventions," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 190-209, April.
    15. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 762-772.
    16. Gomes, Luís S. & Santos, Sérgio P. & Coelho, Luís Serra & Rebelo, Efigénio L., 2023. "Using MCDA to assist an Intermunicipal community develop a resilience strategy in face of the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    17. Hart, Diane & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2017. "A utilisation focussed and viable systems approach for evaluating technology supported learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(2), pages 626-641.
    18. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    19. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    20. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:83:y:2019:i:c:p:282-296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.