IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v20y2001i3p415-432.html

Decision Aiding, Not Dispute Resolution: Creating Insights through Structured Environmental Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Gregory
  • Tim McDaniels

    (School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada)

  • Daryl Fields

    (BC Hydro, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada)

Abstract

Public participation in environmental decisions has become commonplace. A favored model for public input is to use the tools of dispute resolution to seek consensus among members of a multi-party stakeholder group. The authors believe that a focus on dispute resolution and consensus building can pose impediments to the creation of insights for decisionmakers and lead to the adoption of inferior policy choices. Instead, they advocate an alternative approach to stakeholder participation characterized as “decision aiding” through a structured process based on constructive, multi-attribute techniques and value-focused thinking. In this paper some of the major difficulties posed by a dispute-resolution approach are articulated, the principles of a decision-aiding process reviewed, and this alternative approach illustrated by describing a stakeholder consultation involving water-use planning for a hydroelectric facility on the Alouette River in British Columbia, Canada. © 2001 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Gregory & Tim McDaniels & Daryl Fields, 2001. "Decision Aiding, Not Dispute Resolution: Creating Insights through Structured Environmental Decisions," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 415-432.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:20:y:2001:i:3:p:415-432
    DOI: 10.1002/pam.1001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/pam.1001
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pam.1001?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. James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
    2. Timothy L. McDaniels, 1996. "The structured value referendum: Eliciting preferences for environmental policy alternatives," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 227-251.
    3. Bone, John & Hey, John & Suckling, John, 1999. "Are Groups More (or Less) Consistent Than Individuals?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 63-81, April.
    4. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels, 1992. "Value-Focused Thinking about Strategic Decisions at BC Hydro," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 94-109, December.
    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. Timothy L. McDaniels & Robin S. Gregory & Daryl Fields, 1999. "Democratizing Risk Management: Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 497-510, June.
    2. Timothy McDaniels & William Trousdale, 1999. "Value-Focused Thinking in a Difficult Context: Planning Tourism for Guimaras, Philippines," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 58-70, August.
    3. Edward Gu & Tianguang Meng & Hongying Wang & Alexander Zhang, 2023. "E-Government Use, Perceived Transparency, Public Knowledge of Government Performance, and Satisfaction with Government: An Analysis of Mediating, Moderating, and Framing Mechanisms Based on the COVID-19 Outbreak Control Survey Data from China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 79-124, September.
    4. Graciela del Carmen Nava Guerrero & Gijsbert Korevaar & Helle Hvid Hansen & Zofia Lukszo, 2019. "Agent-Based Modeling of a Thermal Energy Transition in the Built Environment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-25, March.
    5. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    6. Piotr Tarka, 2016. "Intuition or Marketing Research Information Usefulness in Business Organizations in the Light of Ordinal Regression Analysis," Journal of Emerging Trends in Marketing and Management, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 41-51, September.
    7. Morone, A. & Morone, P. & Germani, A.R., 2014. "Individual and group behaviour in the traveler's dilemma: An experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-7.
    8. Ralph L. Keeney, 2012. "Value-Focused Brainstorming," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 303-313, December.
    9. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Maltby, Lorraine & Moggridge, Helen L., 2017. "Awareness of greater numbers of ecosystem services affects preferences for floodplain management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 138-146.
    10. Alessia Isopi & Daniele Nosenzo & Chris Starmer, 2014. "Does consultation improve decision-making?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 377-388, October.
    11. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2017. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Discussion Paper Series dp709, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    12. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2007. "Expérimentation de laboratoire et économie : contre quelques idées reçues et faux problèmes," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 83(1), pages 91-116.
    13. Gregory W. Fischer & Jianmin Jia & Mary Frances Luce, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: The RandMAU Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(5), pages 669-684, May.
    14. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    15. Sutter, Matthias, 2007. "Are teams prone to myopic loss aversion? An experimental study on individual versus team investment behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 128-132, November.
    16. van Riel, A.C.R. & Lievens, A., 2003. "New service development in high tech sectors: a decision making perspective," Research Memorandum 013, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    17. Fabrizio Zerbini, 2017. "CSR Initiatives as Market Signals: A Review and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 1-23, November.
    18. repec:ehl:lserod:33114 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Karin Brunsson, 2022. "Formal Rationality as Ideal: The Textbook Approach to Management," Athens Journal of Business & Economics, Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), vol. 8(4), pages 329-344, October.
    20. William N. Caballero & Roi Naveiro & David Ríos Insua, 2022. "Modeling Ethical and Operational Preferences in Automated Driving Systems," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 21-43, March.
    21. Caner Dincer & Banu Dincer, 2023. "Social Commerce and Purchase Intention: A Brief Look at the Last Decade by Bibliometrics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-27, January.

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:20:y:2001:i:3:p:415-432. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.