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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. repec:sae:envval:v:11:y:2002:i:4:p:461-488 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Somerville, Jason & McGowan, Féidhlim, 2016. "Can chocolate cure blindness? Investigating the effect of preference strength and incentives on the incidence of Choice Blindness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-11.
    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. Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1996. "When Do the "Dollars" Make Sense?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 288-299, August.
    7. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    8. Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 369-401, May.
    9. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Roessler, Craig, 1998. "Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 299-312, December.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    14. San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
    15. Moyersoen Johan, 2004. "Psychology's Prospect Theory: Relevance for Identifying Positions of Local Satiation as Robust Reference Points of Joint Actions in Peace Agreements," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 46-68, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    18. Baran, E. & Jantunen, T. & Chheng, P., 2006. "Developing a consultative Bayesian model for integrated management of aquatic resources: an inland coastal zone case study," IWMI Books, Reports H039117, International Water Management Institute.
    19. 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.
    20. Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
    21. Andrew Grant & Steve Satchell, 2019. "Endogenous divorce risk and investment," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(3), pages 845-876, July.

    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.