IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v40y1994i8p1035-1048.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Gregory

    (Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401)

  • Ralph L. Keeney

    (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

Abstract

Choices that require multiple stakeholders to balance conflicting objectives are among today's most controversial decisions. Although many techniques exist for helping decision makers to select among projects, little attention has been given to processes for identifying improved alternatives based on clearly articulated stakeholder values. In this paper we describe a general process to inform controversial social decisions by first structuring stakeholder objectives and then using this information to create policy alternatives. We also report the results of a workshop in Sabah, Malaysia which used the proposed approach as the basis for multiple stakeholder negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 1035-1048, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:40:y:1994:i:8:p:1035-1048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.8.1035
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. JS Armstrong & Fred Collopy, 2004. "Causal Forces: Structuring Knowledge for Time-series Extrapolation," General Economics and Teaching 0412003, EconWPA.
    2. Fildes, Robert & Lusk, Edward J, 1984. "The choice of a forecasting model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 427-435.
    3. Scott Armstrong, J., 1988. "Research needs in forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 449-465.
    4. Robert Carbone & JS Armstrong, 2004. "Evaluation of Extrapolative Forecasting Methods: Results of a Survey of Academicians and Practitioners," General Economics and Teaching 0412008, EconWPA.
    5. Robert Carbone & Spyros Makridakis, 1986. "Forecasting When Pattern Changes Occur Beyond the Historical Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 257-271, March.
    6. Armstrong, J. Scott & Collopy, Fred, 1992. "Error measures for generalizing about forecasting methods: Empirical comparisons," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 69-80, June.
    7. Sanders, NR & Ritzman, LP, 1990. "Improving short-term forecasts," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 365-373.
    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. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    2. Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
    3. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    4. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation,and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Jos Timmermans, 2009. "Interactive Actor Analysis for Rural Water Management in The Netherlands: An Application of the Transactional Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(6), pages 1211-1236, April.
    6. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    7. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2008. "Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 626-635, April.
    8. Badami, Madhav G., 2004. "Environmental policy-making in a difficult context: motorized two-wheeled vehicle emissions in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(16), pages 1861-1877, November.
    9. Leon, Orfelio G., 1999. "Value-Focused Thinking versus Alternative-Focused Thinking: Effects on Generation of Objectives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 213-227, December.
    10. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    11. Satterfield, Terre & Slovic, Paul & Gregory, Robin, 2000. "Narrative valuation in a policy judgment context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 315-331, September.
    12. Marttunen, Mika & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 551-563, December.
    13. Guerrero, Bridget L. & Amosson, Stephen H. & Almas, Lal K., 2008. "Integrating Stakeholder Input into Water Policy Development and Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(02), August.
    14. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    15. Keeney, Ralph L., 1996. "Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 537-549, August.
    16. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    17. Lu, Chao & Liu, Hu-Chen & Tao, Jie & Rong, Ke & Hsieh, Ying-Che, 2017. "A key stakeholder-based financial subsidy stimulation for Chinese EV industrialization: A system dynamics simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-14.
    18. Garrett, Vicki & Koontz, Tomas M., 2008. "Breaking the cycle: Producer and consumer perspectives on the non-adoption of passive solar housing in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1551-1566, April.
    19. Vignola, Raffaele & McDaniels, Tim L. & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Negotiation analysis for mechanisms to deliver ecosystem services: The case of soil conservation in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 22-31.
    20. Clarke, Alan & Raffay, Agnes & Wiltshier, Peter, 2009. "Loosing it: Knowledge Management in Tourism Development Projects," MPRA Paper 25438, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Aug 2009.
    21. Failing, L. & Gregory, R. & Harstone, M., 2007. "Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 47-60, October.
    22. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    23. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, pages 561-574.
    24. repec:pal:jorsoc:v:55:y:2004:i:11:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2601777 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Gamboa, Gonzalo & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2015. "Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 99-113.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:40:y:1994:i:8:p:1035-1048. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.