IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i5p992-1005.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expanding the Reach of Participatory Risk Management: Testing an Online Decision‐Aiding Framework for Informing Internally Consistent Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas L. Bessette
  • Victoria Campbell‐Arvai
  • Joseph Arvai

Abstract

This article presents research aimed at developing and testing an online, multistakeholder decision‐aiding framework for informing multiattribute risk management choices associated with energy development and climate change. The framework was designed to provide necessary background information and facilitate internally consistent choices, or choices that are in line with users’ prioritized objectives. In order to test different components of the decision‐aiding framework, a six‐part, 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment was conducted, yielding eight treatment scenarios. The three factors included: (1) whether or not users could construct their own alternatives; (2) the level of detail regarding the composition of alternatives users would evaluate; and (3) the way in which a final choice between users’ own constructed (or highest‐ranked) portfolio and an internally consistent portfolio was presented. Participants’ self‐reports revealed the framework was easy to use and providing an opportunity to develop one's own risk‐management alternatives (Factor 1) led to the highest knowledge gains. Empirical measures showed the internal consistency of users’ decisions across all treatments to be lower than expected and confirmed that providing information about alternatives’ composition (Factor 2) resulted in the least internally consistent choices. At the same time, those users who did not develop their own alternatives and were not shown detailed information about the composition of alternatives believed their choices to be the most internally consistent. These results raise concerns about how the amount of information provided and the ability to construct alternatives may inversely affect users’ real and perceived internal consistency.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas L. Bessette & Victoria Campbell‐Arvai & Joseph Arvai, 2016. "Expanding the Reach of Participatory Risk Management: Testing an Online Decision‐Aiding Framework for Informing Internally Consistent Choices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 992-1005, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:5:p:992-1005
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12481
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12481
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12481?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. Lisa Kenney & Douglas Bessette & Joseph Arvai, 2015. "Structuring decisions about energy in developing communities: an example from Canada's north," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(5), pages 855-873, May.
    2. R.S. Wilson & J.L. Arvai, 2010. "Why less is more: exploring affect-based value neglect," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 399-409, June.
    3. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    4. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory, 2015. "At Home on the Range? Lay Interpretations of Numerical Uncertainty Ranges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1281-1295, July.
    5. Yee, Susan Harrell & Carriger, John F. & Bradley, Patricia & Fisher, William S. & Dyson, Brian, 2015. "Developing scientific information to support decisions for sustainable coral reef ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 39-50.
    6. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, January.
    7. Ronald A. Howard, 1988. "Decision Analysis: Practice and Promise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 679-695, June.
    8. Corner, Adam & Venables, Dan & Spence, Alexa & Poortinga, Wouter & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2011. "Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4823-4833, September.
    9. Joseph L. Arvai & Ann Froschauer, 2010. "Good decisions, bad decisions: the interaction of process and outcome in evaluations of decision quality," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(7), pages 845-859, October.
    10. Sunstein, Cass R, 2003. "Terrorism and Probability Neglect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 121-136, March-May.
    11. Charlie Wilson & Tim Mcdaniels, 2007. "Structured decision-making to link climate change and sustainable development," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 353-370, July.
    12. 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.
    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. Jobin, Marilou & Siegrist, Michael, 2018. "We choose what we like – Affect as a driver of electricity portfolio choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 736-747.
    2. Alexane Dubois & Simona Holzer & Georgios Xexakis & Julia Cousse & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2019. "Informed Citizen Panels on the Swiss Electricity Mix 2035: Longer-Term Evolution of Citizen Preferences and Affect in Two Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.

    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. Stephanie E. Chang & Timothy McDaniels & Jana Fox & Rajan Dhariwal & Holly Longstaff, 2014. "Toward Disaster‐Resilient Cities: Characterizing Resilience of Infrastructure Systems with Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 416-434, March.
    2. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2020. "Robust portfolio decision analysis: An application to the energy research and development portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 1107-1120.
    3. C Ram & G Montibeller & A Morton, 2011. "Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for the evaluation of strategic options," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 817-829, May.
    4. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    5. Joseph Arvai & Kristianna Post, 2012. "Risk Management in a Developing Country Context: Improving Decisions About Point‐of‐Use Water Treatment Among the Rural Poor in Africa," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 67-80, January.
    6. Joseph Árvai & Sara Goto Gray & Kaitlin T. Raimi & Robyn Wilson & Caitlin Drummond, 2020. "Industry‐Dominated Science Advisory Boards Are Perceived To Be Legitimate…But Only When They Recommend More Stringent Risk Management Policies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2329-2339, November.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    8. Pedersen, Tom Ivar & Vatn, Jørn, 2022. "Optimizing a condition-based maintenance policy by taking the preferences of a risk-averse decision maker into account," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    9. Marttunen, Mika & Haag, Fridolin & Belton, Valerie & Mustajoki, Jyri & Lienert, Judit, 2019. "Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 604-620.
    10. Ram, Camelia & Montibeller, Gilberto & Morton, Alec, 2011. "Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for the evaluation of strategic options," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 32215, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Timothy McDaniels, 2021. "Four Decades of Transformation in Decision Analytic Practice for Societal Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 491-502, March.
    12. Alex Y Lo, 2011. "Analysis and Democracy: The Antecedents of the Deliberative Approach of Ecosystems Valuation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(6), pages 958-974, December.
    13. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    14. KARRI PASANEN & MIKKO KURTTILA & JOUNI PYKÄlÄINEN & JYRKI KANGAS & PEKKA LESKINEN, 2005. "Mesta — Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners' Decision-Support Environment For The Evaluation Of Alternative Forest Plans Over The Internet," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 601-620.
    15. Gupta, Kuhika & Nowlin, Matthew C. & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2019. "Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    16. Andrew Chapman & Timothy Fraser & Melanie Dennis, 2019. "Investigating Ties between Energy Policy and Social Equity Research: A Citation Network Analysis," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, April.
    17. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    18. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    19. Alan Brennan & Samer Kharroubi & Anthony O'Hagan & Jim Chilcott, 2007. "Calculating Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information via Monte Carlo Sampling Algorithms," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(4), pages 448-470, July.
    20. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.

    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:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:5:p:992-1005. 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)1539-6924 .

    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.