Increasing environmental sustainability by incorporating stakeholders' intensities of preferences into the policy formation
AbstractIn this paper a tractable methodology is presented to improve environmental sustainability by incorporating stakeholders’ intensities of preferences into the decision making process. The environmental decision making will be controversial when there is a complex issue at hand. The difficulty comes up as stakeholders cannot see how their preferences are taken into account in the policy making process. To reduce this controversy, we propose a qualitative method to elicit stakeholders’ intensities of preferences towards a set of environmental services. Subsequently, the elicited intensities of preferences are aggregated by a mathematical approach on each single criterion. Finally, a multi-criteria approach is applied to use the aggregated values across all criteria to provide the analyst with a rank order of existing alternative plans. In this way, the stakeholders are able to verify that their opinion is taken into account, even if it is contrary to the majority voice. The natural resources manager will benefit from an increased insight into the prevalent opinion on each of the criteria through the supplied social intensities of preferences, enabling a more easily communicated justification of the final decision, and an augmented tractability of the decision making process.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium with number 44206.
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Sustainability; stakeholder's preferences; tractable decision making; social support; qualitative valuation; Environmental Economics and Policy;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2008-11-25 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
- Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 369-401, May.
- Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
- Richard B. Howarth & Matthew A. Wilson, 2006. "A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 1-16.
- Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
- Wendy Proctor & Martin Drechsler, 2006. "Deliberative multicriteria evaluation," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, April.
- Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
- Jack L. Knetsch, 1994. "Environmental Valuation: Some Problems of Wrong Questions and Misleading Answers," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 3(4), pages 351-368, November.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-35, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.