IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/syspar/v34y2021i2d10.1007_s11213-020-09521-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterisation of Adaptive Reuse Stakeholders and the Effectiveness of Collaborative Rationality Towards Building Resilient Urban Areas

Author

Listed:
  • Itohan Esther Aigwi

    (Massey University)

  • Robyn Phipps

    (Massey University)

  • Jason Ingham

    (The University of Auckland)

  • Olga Filippova

    (The University of Auckland)

Abstract

In an adaptive reuse decision-making setting, there is usually an occurrence of conflicting beliefs, opinions, interests, and resources among relevant stakeholders. Knowing who these stakeholders are and why, through a collaborative approach, will allow stakeholders with diverse interests regarding adaptive reuse to come together and participate either directly or indirectly in any stage of the decision-making process. This paper examines the usefulness of collaborative rationality among stakeholders involved in an adaptive reuse decision-making process. The specific objectives include: to characterise the stakeholders involved in an adaptive reuse decision-making process; and; investigate how their collaborative rationality can be effectively integrated into the adaptive reuse decision-making process. After a review of existing literature, four typical categories of stakeholders involved in an adaptive reuse decision-making process were identified: i) investors; ii) producers; iii) regulators; and iv) users. Also, the effectiveness of collaboration among the diverse stakeholders of an adaptive reuse decision-making process was validated using a focus group workshop to incorporate transparency, common goal, ideal speech, and consistency into the process. These findings imply that the active collaboration among characterised adaptive reuse stakeholders is important to mitigate the risk of manipulation of an adaptive reuse decision-making process, and, for policy makers to understand better the expectations and needs of the public, thereby, enhancing consents for optimal adaptive reuse decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Itohan Esther Aigwi & Robyn Phipps & Jason Ingham & Olga Filippova, 2021. "Characterisation of Adaptive Reuse Stakeholders and the Effectiveness of Collaborative Rationality Towards Building Resilient Urban Areas," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 141-151, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:syspar:v:34:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11213-020-09521-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11213-020-09521-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11213-020-09521-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11213-020-09521-0?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. Le Menestrel, Marc & Van Wassenhove, Luk N., 2004. "Ethics outside, within, or beyond OR models?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 477-484, March.
    2. Cees Leeuwis, 2000. "Reconceptualizing Participation for Sustainable Rural Development: Towards a Negotiation Approach," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 31(5), pages 931-959, November.
    3. Evonne Miller & Laurie Buys, 2008. "Retrofitting commercial office buildings for sustainability: tenants' perspectives," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(6), pages 552-561, September.
    4. Phuong T. Nguyen & Sam Wells & Nam Nguyen, 2019. "A Systemic Indicators Framework for Sustainable Rural Community Development," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 335-352, June.
    5. Brocklesby, John, 2009. "Ethics beyond the model: How social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1073-1082, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Anna Scolobig & Michael Thompson & JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016. "Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation," 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. 81(1), pages 45-68, April.
    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. Mingers, John, 2011. "Ethics and OR: Operationalising discourse ethics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 114-124, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    4. Anna Scolobig & Johan Lilliestam, 2016. "Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    6. Mahsa Mesgar & Diego Ramirez-Lovering & Mohamed El-Sioufi, 2021. "Tension, Conflict, and Negotiability of Land for Infrastructure Retrofit Practices in Informal Settlements," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    8. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    9. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Zehua Wang & Fachao Liang & Sheng-Hau Lin, 2023. "Can socially sustainable development be achieved through homestead withdrawal? A hybrid multiple-attributes decision analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Yuxue Yang & Xuejiao Tan & Yafei Shi & Jun Deng, 2023. "What are the core concerns of policy analysis? A multidisciplinary investigation based on in-depth bibliometric analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three-pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    13. Isaac Agyemang & Adrian McDonald & Steve Carver, 2007. "Application of the DPSIR framework to environmental degradation assessment in northern Ghana," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 212-225, August.
    14. Samuel Adjei-Nsiah & Cees Leeuwis & Ken Giller & Thom Kuyper, 2008. "Action research on alternative land tenure arrangements in Wenchi, Ghana: learning from ambiguous social dynamics and self-organized institutional innovation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(3), pages 389-403, September.
    15. Duckett, Dominic George & McKee, Annie J. & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Kyle, Carol & Boden, Lisa A. & Auty, Harriet & Bessell, Paul R. & McKendrick, Iain J., 2017. "Scenario planning as communicative action: Lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the Scottish livestock industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 138-151.
    16. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    17. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Tommaso Luzzati & Ilaria Tucci & Pietro Guarnieri, 2022. "Information overload and environmental degradation: learning from H.A. Simon and W. Wenders," Papers 2209.01039, arXiv.org.
    19. 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.
    20. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, 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:spr:syspar:v:34:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11213-020-09521-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.