IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v19y2001i4p529-555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Approach to the Appraisal of Technological Risk: A Multicriteria Mapping Study of a Genetically Modified Crop

Author

Listed:
  • Andy Stirling

    (SPRU—Science and Technology Policy Research, Mantell Building, University of Sussex, BN1 9RF, England)

  • Sue Mayer

    (GeneWatch UK, The Mill House, Manchester Road, Tideswell, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 8LN, England)

Abstract

The recent controversy over genetically modified (GM) foods amply demonstrates the general difficulties encountered in the social appraisal of technological risk. Existing procedures for regulatory appraisal neglect many possible forms of impact and routinely exclude important cultural and social dimensions of risk. A narrow, expert, ‘science-based’ approach is now widely acknowledged to be insufficient. There is a need for new approaches that are more broadly based, transparent, pluralistic and ready to acknowledge uncertainty as well as being practically feasible and robust. The authors investigate the potential for a novel ‘multicriteria mapping’ (MCM) method as one such possible tool. Drawing on a variety of perspectives in the current UK debate, a range of agricultural strategies for the production of oilseed rape, including both GM and non-GM options were explored in this MCM pilot exercise. The results demonstrate the general feasibility and positive potential of this type of approach, with specific findings providing modest insights for policymaking in this difficult area.

Suggested Citation

  • Andy Stirling & Sue Mayer, 2001. "A Novel Approach to the Appraisal of Technological Risk: A Multicriteria Mapping Study of a Genetically Modified Crop," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 19(4), pages 529-555, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:19:y:2001:i:4:p:529-555
    DOI: 10.1068/c8s
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c8s
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c8s?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. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    2. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    3. Andrew Stirling, 1998. "Risk at a turning point?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 97-109, April.
    4. Cowan, Robin, 1991. "Tortoises and Hares: Choice among Technologies of Unknown Merit," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(407), pages 801-814, July.
    5. Ortwin Renn, 1998. "Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 49-71, January.
    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. Wells, Geoff J. & Stuart, Neil & Furley, Peter A. & Ryan, Casey M., 2018. "Ecosystem service analysis in marginal agricultural lands: A case study in Belize," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 70-77.
    2. C Turcanu & B Carlé & F Hardeman, 2008. "Agricultural countermeasures in nuclear emergency management: a stakeholders' survey for multi-criteria model development," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 305-312, March.
    3. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    4. Andy Stirling, 2016. "Precaution in the Governance of Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Dean, M. & Hickman, R. & Chen, C.-L., 2019. "Testing the application of participatory MCA: The case of the South Fylde Line," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 62-70.

    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. John Kemp & Ted Wilson, 1999. "Monetary Regime Transformation: The scramble to gold in the late nineteenth century," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 125-149.
    2. Robin Cowan & William Cowan & G.M. Peter Swann, 2004. "Waves in consumption with interdependence among consumers," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 149-177, February.
    3. Alexandre Steyer & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 1998. "Étude empirique de l'influence sociale dans les phénomènes de diffusion : l'exemple du câble et du fax en France," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 135(4), pages 109-119.
    4. Harison, Elad & Koski, Heli, 2006. "Innovative Software Business Strategies: Evidence from Finnish Firms," Discussion Papers 1042, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    5. Andrea Marchini & Chiara Riganelli & Francesco Diotallevi & Bianca Polenzani, 2021. "Label information and consumer behaviour: evidence on drinking milk sector," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Cantono, Simona, 2012. "Unveiling diffusion dynamics: an autocatalytic percolation model of environmental innovation diffusion and the optimal dynamic path of adoption subsidies," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201222, University of Turin.
    7. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    8. Cowan, Robin & Cowan, William & Swann, Peter, 1997. "A model of demand with interactions among consumers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 711-732, October.
    9. Volker Meyer & Sally Priest & Christian Kuhlicke, 2012. "Economic evaluation of structural and non-structural flood risk management measures: examples from the Mulde River," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 62(2), pages 301-324, June.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    11. Babutsidze, Zakaria & Cowan, Robin, 2009. "Inertia, Interaction and Clustering in Demand," MERIT Working Papers 2009-045, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Jeroen Bergh, 2007. "Evolutionary thinking in environmental economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 521-549, October.
    13. A. Bassanini & G. Dosi, 1998. "Competing Technologies, International Diffusion and the Rate of Convergence to a Stable Market Structure," Working Papers ir98012, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    14. Zakaria Babutsidze, 2011. "Returns to product promotion when consumers are learning how to consume," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 783-801, December.
    15. Michihiro, Kandori & Rob, Rafael, 1998. "Bandwagon Effects and Long Run Technology Choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 30-60, January.
    16. Dimitriou, Harry T. & Ward, E. John & Dean, Marco, 2016. "Presenting the case for the application of multi-criteria analysis to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 7-20.
    17. Way, Rupert & Lafond, François & Lillo, Fabrizio & Panchenko, Valentyn & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2019. "Wright meets Markowitz: How standard portfolio theory changes when assets are technologies following experience curves," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 211-238.
    18. John Whalley & Weimin Zhou & Xiaopeng An, 2009. "Chinese Experience with Global G3 Standard-Setting," CESifo Working Paper Series 2537, CESifo.
    19. Stirling, Andy, 2010. "Multicriteria diversity analysis: A novel heuristic framework for appraising energy portfolios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1622-1634, April.
    20. Babutsidze, Zakaria, 2009. "Learning How to Consume and Returns to Product Promotion," MERIT Working Papers 2009-018, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    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:19:y:2001:i:4:p:529-555. 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.