IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v24y2006i2p169-190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deliberative Multicriteria Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Wendy Proctor

    (CSIRO Land and Water Pye Laboratory, Clunies Ross Street, Gungahlin Homestead, Barton Highway, Canberra, GPO Box 1666, Canberra ACT, Australia 2601)

  • Martin Drechsler

    (Department of Ecological Modelling, UFZ—Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig-Halle GmbH, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany)

Abstract

Multicriteria evaluation (MCE) is a well-tried and effective procedure for structuring and aiding complex decisionmaking processes, especially those involving environmental considerations. Formal deliberative processes have also been successful in aiding understanding and meeting consensus in complex and difficult decision problems which involve more than one decisionmaker. Here, both approaches are combined in a new technique called ‘deliberative multicriteria evaluation’ to assist a group of natural resource managers to decide on a suitable option for recreation and tourism activities in the upper Goulburn–Broken Catchment of Victoria, Australia. This approach is an attempt to combine the advantages of MCE, providing structure and integration in complex decision problems, with the advantages of deliberation and stakeholder interaction provided by a ‘citizens' jury’. An important outcome of the process was the discovery of some crucial aspects of the decision problem that required deeper understanding and assessment if that preferred strategy were to have the desired results. Some suggestions for improving the process are provided but, in general, the stakeholder jury was regarded as a helpful and useful procedure by the decisionmakers and one which aided them in their understanding of the issues of a complex decisionmaking problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Wendy Proctor & Martin Drechsler, 2006. "Deliberative Multicriteria Evaluation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:24:y:2006:i:2:p:169-190
    DOI: 10.1068/c22s
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c22s
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c22s?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van den Hove, Sybille, 2000. "Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: the European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 457-472, June.
    2. Wendy Kenyon & Nick Hanley & Ceara Nevin, 2001. "Citizens' Juries: An Aid to Environmental Valuation?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 19(4), pages 557-566, August.
    3. Lenaghan, Jo, 1999. "Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 45-61, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kenyon, Wendy, 2007. "Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: A participant-led multi-criteria approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 70-81, October.
    2. Bunse, Lukas & Rendon, Olivia & Luque, Sandra, 2015. "What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 88-97.
    3. Kirsty L. Blackstock & Elizabeth A. Kirk & Alison D. Reeves, 2005. "Sociology, Science and Sustainability: Developing Relationships in Scotland," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 10(2), pages 125-140, July.
    4. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2003. "Drug reimbursement in Finland--a case of explicit prioritising in special categories," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 169-177, November.
    5. Anne-Sophie Merot & Frédérique Grazzini & Jean-Pierre Boissin, 2014. "Gouvernance et développement durable : Le cas de la responsabilité élargie du producteur dans une filière de gestion des déchets," Post-Print halshs-01185814, HAL.
    6. Vandermeulen, V. & Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2008. "Designing trans-disciplinary research to support policy formulation for sustainable agricultural development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 352-361, October.
    7. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    8. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    9. Helgeson, Jennifer & Dietz, Simon & Atkinson, Giles D. & Hepburn, Cameron & Sælen, Håkon, 2009. "Siblings, not triplets: social preferences for risk, inequality and time in discounting climate change," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-28.
    10. Kunsch, P.L. & Kavathatzopoulos, I. & Rauschmayer, F., 2009. "Modelling complex ethical decision problems with operations research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1100-1108, December.
    11. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    12. Christian Engau & Volker Hoffmann, 2011. "Corporate response strategies to regulatory uncertainty: evidence from uncertainty about post-Kyoto regulation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(1), pages 53-80, March.
    13. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2008. "Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--A review of empirical studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 1-9, April.
    14. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
    15. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    16. Pelenc, Jérôme & Etxano, Iker, 2021. "Capabilities, Ecosystem Services, and Strong Sustainability through SMCE: The Case of Haren (Belgium)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    17. Nisker, Jeff & Martin, Douglas K. & Bluhm, Robyn & Daar, Abdallah S., 2006. "Theatre as a public engagement tool for health-policy development," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(2-3), pages 258-271, October.
    18. Felix Rauschmayer & Sybille van den Hove & Thomas Koetz, 2009. "Participation in EU Biodiversity Governance: How Far beyond Rhetoric?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 27(1), pages 42-58, February.
    19. Bogelund, Pia, 2007. "Making green discourses matter in policy-making: Learning from discursive power struggles within the policy area of car taxation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 78-92, June.
    20. Street, Jackie & Duszynski, Katherine & Krawczyk, Stephanie & Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2014. "The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-9.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:envirc:v:24:y:2006:i:2:p:169-190. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.