A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options

IF 2.3 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Shuang Liu , Kirsten Maclean , Cathy Robinson
{"title":"A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options","authors":"Shuang Liu ,&nbsp;Kirsten Maclean ,&nbsp;Cathy Robinson","doi":"10.1007/s40070-019-00103-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Stakeholder participation is increasingly being embedded into decision-making processes from the local to the global scale. With limited resources to engage stakeholders, frameworks that allow decision-makers to make cost-effective choices are greatly needed. In this paper, we present a structured decision-making (SDM) framework that enables environmental decision-makers to prioritise different engagement options by assessing their relative cost-effectiveness. We demonstrate the application of this framework using a case study in biosecurity management. Drawing on a scenario of Panama Disease Tropical Race 4 (TR4) invasion in the Australian banana industry, we conducted 25 semi-structured interviews and held a workshop with key stakeholders to elicit their key concerns and convert them into four objectives-making more informed decisions, maximising buy-in, empowering people, and minimising the stress of biosecurity incidents. We also identified ten engagement alternatives at local, State/Territory, and National scales. Our results showed that options to engage local stakeholders and enable capacity to undertake adaptive approaches to biosecurity management are more cost-effective than engagement efforts that seek to build capacities at higher decision-making levels. More interestingly, using the weights provided by different stakeholder groups does not significantly affect the cost-effectiveness ranking of the ten options considered. Even though the results are contingent on the context of this biosecurity study, the SDM framework developed for maximising cost-effectiveness is transferable to other areas of environmental management. The efficient frontier generated by this framework allows decision-makers to examine the trade-offs between the costs and benefits and select the best portfolio for their investment. This approach provides a practical and transparent estimate of the return on investment for stakeholder engagement in highly complex or uncertain situations, as is usually the case for environmental issues.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44104,"journal":{"name":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40070-019-00103-7","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2193943821001060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Stakeholder participation is increasingly being embedded into decision-making processes from the local to the global scale. With limited resources to engage stakeholders, frameworks that allow decision-makers to make cost-effective choices are greatly needed. In this paper, we present a structured decision-making (SDM) framework that enables environmental decision-makers to prioritise different engagement options by assessing their relative cost-effectiveness. We demonstrate the application of this framework using a case study in biosecurity management. Drawing on a scenario of Panama Disease Tropical Race 4 (TR4) invasion in the Australian banana industry, we conducted 25 semi-structured interviews and held a workshop with key stakeholders to elicit their key concerns and convert them into four objectives-making more informed decisions, maximising buy-in, empowering people, and minimising the stress of biosecurity incidents. We also identified ten engagement alternatives at local, State/Territory, and National scales. Our results showed that options to engage local stakeholders and enable capacity to undertake adaptive approaches to biosecurity management are more cost-effective than engagement efforts that seek to build capacities at higher decision-making levels. More interestingly, using the weights provided by different stakeholder groups does not significantly affect the cost-effectiveness ranking of the ten options considered. Even though the results are contingent on the context of this biosecurity study, the SDM framework developed for maximising cost-effectiveness is transferable to other areas of environmental management. The efficient frontier generated by this framework allows decision-makers to examine the trade-offs between the costs and benefits and select the best portfolio for their investment. This approach provides a practical and transparent estimate of the return on investment for stakeholder engagement in highly complex or uncertain situations, as is usually the case for environmental issues.

一个具有成本效益的框架,优先考虑利益攸关方参与的选择
从地方到全球范围,利益相关者的参与正日益融入决策过程。由于参与利益攸关方的资源有限,因此非常需要能够使决策者做出具有成本效益的选择的框架。在本文中,我们提出了一个结构化决策(SDM)框架,使环境决策者能够通过评估其相对成本效益来优先考虑不同的参与选项。我们通过一个生物安全管理的案例研究来展示这一框架的应用。根据巴拿马病热带4号种(TR4)入侵澳大利亚香蕉产业的情况,我们进行了25次半结构化访谈,并与主要利益相关者举行了一次研讨会,以了解他们的主要关注点,并将其转化为四个目标——做出更明智的决策、最大限度地获得支持、赋予人们权力和最大限度地减少生物安全事件的压力。我们还在地方、州/地区和全国范围内确定了十种参与方案。我们的研究结果表明,与寻求在更高决策层面建立能力的参与努力相比,让当地利益相关者参与并使能力能够采取适应性方法进行生物安全管理的选择更具成本效益。更有趣的是,使用不同利益相关者群体提供的权重并没有显著影响所考虑的十个选项的成本效益排名。尽管结果取决于这项生物安全研究的背景,但为实现成本效益最大化而开发的可持续发展机制框架可以转移到环境管理的其他领域。这个框架产生的有效边界允许决策者检查成本和收益之间的权衡,并为他们的投资选择最佳的投资组合。这种方法为利益相关者在高度复杂或不确定的情况下(通常是环境问题)的投资回报提供了实际和透明的估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信