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. 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.
    2. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    3. Mingers, John, 2011. "Ethics and OR: Operationalising discourse ethics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 114-124, April.
    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. Rachael Sherman & Hariharan Naganathan & Kristen Parrish, 2021. "Energy Savings Results from Small Commercial Building Retrofits in the US," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, September.
    7. Andrea Saltelli, 2007. "Composite Indicators between Analysis and Advocacy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 65-77, March.
    8. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    9. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Giuseppe Munda, 2005. "“Measuring Sustainability”: A Multi-Criterion Framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 117-134, January.
    14. White, Leroy & Lee, Gregory John, 2009. "Operational research and sustainable development: Tackling the social dimension," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(3), pages 683-692, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Murat Sartas & Piet van Asten & Marc Schut & Mariette McCampbell & Moureen Awori & Perez Muchunguzi & Moses Tenywa & Sylvia Namazzi & Ana Sole Amat & Graham Thiele & Claudio Proietti & Andre Devaux & , 2019. "Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, November.
    17. Locatelli, Bruno & Rojas, Varinia & Salinas, Zenia, 2008. "Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica: A fuzzy multi-criteria analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 275-285, April.
    18. Adams, Michelle & Wheeler, David & Woolston, Genna, 2011. "A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2550-2559, May.
    19. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    20. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.

    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.