IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/natres/v24y2000i1p11-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models

Author

Listed:
  • Steve R. Harrison
  • M. Ejaz Qureshi

Abstract

Simplistic economic objectives such as maximisation of producer profits are of little relevance in generating information to assist in the management of natural resources beyond the individual firm level. To provide data and information to support decision‐making in natural resource management, it is necessary to take into account the views of various stakeholder groups and the multiple objectives of each group, through the use of some form of multicriteria analysis (MCA). Important decisions arise in the choice of stakeholder, since this will influence the management advice generated. Many groups and individuals can be affected by resource management decisions, but it would be impractical to attempt to identify the objectives and estimate their importance for each group. Also, questions arise concerning whether or not to include government agencies (which represent the broader community) and researchers as stakeholders. A further issue concerns choosing representative samples of stakeholder groups, from which to obtain preference data. Discussions with modellers and a reading of the literature would suggest that the choice of stakeholder groups and representatives is conducted haphazardly and is perhaps biased, and that a more systematic approach is needed. This article explores the above issues with reference to a number of multicriteria analyses, including local studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve R. Harrison & M. Ejaz Qureshi, 2000. "Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 24(1), pages 11-19, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:natres:v:24:y:2000:i:1:p:11-19
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-8947.2000.tb00925.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2000.tb00925.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2000.tb00925.x?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. Rosato, Paolo & Stellin, Giuseppe, 1993. "A multi-criteria approach to territorial management: The case of the Caorle and Bibione lagoon nature park," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 399-417.
    2. Qureshi, M. E. & Harrison, S. R. & Wegener, M. K., 1999. "Validation of multicriteria analysis models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 105-116, November.
    3. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    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. Rivas Palma, Rosa Maria & Manley, Bruce & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2012. "Environmental and Social Values from Plantation Forests: A Study in New Zealand with Focus on the Hawke’s Bay Region," 2009 Conference, August 27-28, 2009, Nelson, New Zealand 136074, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Muflikh, Y.N. & Smith, C. & Brown, C. & Aziz, A.A., 2021. "Analysing price volatility in agricultural value chains using systems thinking: A case study of the Indonesian chilli value chain," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    3. Mohamed Arbi Abdeladhim & Luuk Fleskens & Jantiene Baartman & Mongi Sghaier & Mohamed Ouessar & Coen J. Ritsema, 2022. "Generation of Potential Sites for Sustainable Water Harvesting Techniques in Oum Zessar Watershed, South East Tunisia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, May.

    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. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    2. Gomez-Limon, Jose A. & Riesgo, Laura, 2004. "Irrigation water pricing: differential impacts on irrigated farms," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 47-66, July.
    3. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    4. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    6. Raphael Hoerler & Fabian Haerri & Merja Hoppe, 2019. "New Solutions in Sustainable Commuting—The Attitudes and Experience of European Stakeholders and Experts in Switzerland," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Saint Ville, Arlette S. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Phillip, Leroy E., 2017. "How do stakeholder interactions influence national food security policy in the Caribbean? The case of Saint Lucia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 53-64.
    8. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    9. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    10. Segadlo, Nadine, 2021. "Navigating through an external agenda and internal preferences: Ghana's national migration policy," IDOS Discussion Papers 8/2021, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    11. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    12. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "No Stakeholder Is an Island: Human Barriers and Enablers in Participatory Environmental Modelling," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, February.
    13. Anna Gronba-Chyła & Agnieszka Generowicz & Paweł Kwaśnicki & Dawid Cycoń & Justyna Kwaśny & Katarzyna Grąz & Krzysztof Gaska & Józef Ciuła, 2022. "Determining the Effectiveness of Street Cleaning with the Use of Decision Analysis and Research on the Reduction in Chloride in Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-11, May.
    14. Edossa, D. C. & Awulachew, Seleshi Bekele & Namara, Regassa E. & Babel, M. S. & Das Gupta, A., 2007. "Indigenous systems of conflict resolution in Oromia, Ethiopia," IWMI Books, Reports H040692, International Water Management Institute.
    15. Xenarios, S. & Tziritis, I., 2007. "Improving pluralism in Multi Criteria Decision Aid approach through Focus Group technique and Content Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 692-703, May.
    16. Marion Glaser & Rosete Da Silva Oliveira, 2004. "Prospects for the co‐management of mangrove ecosystems on the North Brazilian coast: Whose rights, whose duties and whose priorities?," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(3), pages 224-233, August.
    17. Mukherjee, Krishnendu, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution: a bibliometric analysis from past, present and future of AHP and TOPSIS," MPRA Paper 59887, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Huber, Robert & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Brown, Calum & El Benni, Nadja & Feil, Jan-Henning & Grohmann, Pascal & Joormann, Ineke & Leonhardt, Heidi & Mitter, Hermine & Müller, Birgit, 2024. "Farm typologies for understanding farm systems and improving agricultural policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    19. Nicolas Faysse, 2006. "Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi‐stakeholder platforms," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 30(3), pages 219-229, August.
    20. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.

    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:natres:v:24:y:2000:i:1:p:11-19. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1477-8947 .

    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.