IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v27y2007i1d10.1007_s10669-007-9017-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflecting on stakeholders’ perceptions in an Ecological Risk Assessment workshop: Lessons for practitioners

Author

Listed:
  • B. M. Kellett

    (CSIRO Land and Water, Davies Laboratory
    CRC for Irrigation Futures
    The University of Melbourne
    The University of Melbourne)

  • R. I. Beilin

    (The University of Melbourne)

  • K. L. Bristow

    (CSIRO Land and Water, Davies Laboratory
    CRC for Irrigation Futures)

  • G. Moore

    (CRC for Irrigation Futures
    The University of Melbourne)

  • F. H. S. Chiew

    (CRC for Irrigation Futures
    The University of Melbourne)

Abstract

A new form of Ecological Risk Assessment aims to improve environmental decision-making through strong stakeholder engagement, often in workshop situations. This wider focus increases interaction between workshop practitioners and stakeholders for reflecting on, and learning from, each others perceptions. In this article, we analyse and discuss a one day workshop that was concerned with trialling this method of deriving an Ecological Risk Assessment. We found that stakeholders had issues with some elements of the workshop process. The decision problem was formulated prior to the workshop and without consultation among all the stakeholders. Consequently, the original decision problem was rejected for a mutually derived broader focus and this resulted in a loss of clarity and purpose. Stakeholders did not wholly concur with the prioritising of ecological values over social and economic values and some stakeholders objected to defining assessment endpoints, because it implies a reductionist approach that doesn’t capture significance and understanding of systems. Ecological Risk Assessment workshops are complex and require significant practitioner and stakeholder development to provide useful and mutually derived outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • B. M. Kellett & R. I. Beilin & K. L. Bristow & G. Moore & F. H. S. Chiew, 2007. "Reflecting on stakeholders’ perceptions in an Ecological Risk Assessment workshop: Lessons for practitioners," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 109-117, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:27:y:2007:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-007-9017-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-007-9017-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-007-9017-8
    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/s10669-007-9017-8?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. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    2. 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.
    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. Amira Ghennaï & Said Madani & Carola Hein, 2023. "Evaluating the sustainability of scenarios for port city development with Boussole21 method," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 87-106, March.

    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. repec:sae:envval:v:11:y:2002:i:4:p:461-488 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Robin Gregory & Baruch Fischhoff & Tim McDaniels, 2005. "Acceptable Input: Using Decision Analysis to Guide Public Policy Deliberations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 4-16, March.
    3. Bensch, Gunther & Grimm, Michael, 2024. "Behavioural constraints in energy technology uptake: Evidence from real-purchase offers in rural Rwanda and Senegal," Ruhr Economic Papers 1081, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    4. Eva Wanek & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Alda Mari, 2024. "Desire, moral evaluation or sense of duty: The modal framing of stated preference elicitation," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(4), pages 434-459, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    7. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    8. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Alan Shiell & Janelle Seymour & Penelope Hawe & Sue Cameron, 2000. "Are preferences over health states complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 47-55, January.
    11. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. 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.
    13. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    14. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    15. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Gregory M. Trompeter, 1998. "An Examination of Factors Affecting Audit Practice Development," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 481-504, December.
    16. Gunther Bensch & Jörg Peters, 2020. "One‐Off Subsidies and Long‐Run Adoption—Experimental Evidence on Improved Cooking Stoves in Senegal," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 72-90, January.
    17. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2010. "Improving the Generation of Decision Objectives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 238-255, September.
    18. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    19. Lienert, Judit & Duygan, Mert & Zheng, Jun, 2016. "Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 746-760.
    20. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 29-48, May.
    21. I. Linkov & F. K. Satterstrom & G. Kiker & T. P. Seager & T. Bridges & K. H. Gardner & S. H. Rogers & D. A. Belluck & A. Meyer, 2006. "Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 61-78, February.

    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:envsyd:v:27:y:2007:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-007-9017-8. 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.