IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/feemnr/9555.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • van Kouwen, Frank
  • Dieperink, Carel
  • Schot, Paul P.
  • Wassen, Martin J.

Abstract

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is struggling with a lack of science-management integration. Many computer systems, usually known as 'decision support systems', have been developed with the intention to make scientific knowledge about complex systems more accessible for coastal managers. These tools, allowing a multi-disciplinary approach with multi-criteria analyses, are designed for well-defined, structured problems. However, in practice stakeholder consensus on the problem structure is usually lacking. Aim of this paper is to explore the practical opportunities for the new so-called Quasta approach to structure complex problems in a group setting. This approach is based on a combination of Cognitive Mapping and Qualitative Probabilistic Networks. It comprehends a new type of computer system which is quite simple and flexible as well. The tool is tested in two workshops in which various coastal management issues were discussed. Evaluations of these workshops show that (1) this system helps stakeholders to make them aware of causal relationships, (2) it is useful for a qualitative exploration of scenarios, (3) it identifies the quantitative knowledge gaps of the problem being discussed and (4) the threshold for non technicians to use this tool is quite low..

Suggested Citation

  • van Kouwen, Frank & Dieperink, Carel & Schot, Paul P. & Wassen, Martin J., 2007. "Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders," Natural Resources Management Working Papers 9555, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:feemnr:9555
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.9555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/9555/files/wp070052.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.9555?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. Bell, Michelle L. & Hobbs, Benjamin F. & Ellis, Hugh, 2003. "The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 289-316, December.
    2. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    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. Geurts, Jac. L. A. & Joldersma, Cisca, 2001. "Methodology for participatory policy analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 300-310, January.
    5. Eden, Colin, 2004. "Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 673-686, December.
    6. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2005. "Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(5), pages 909-924, May.
    7. Wellman, Michael P., 1994. "Inference in cognitive maps," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 137-148.
    8. M. Shamim Khan & Mohammed Quaddus, 2004. "Group Decision Support Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Causal Reasoning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 463-480, September.
    9. Marchant, Thierry, 1999. "Cognitive maps and fuzzy implications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 626-637, May.
    10. Raimo Hämäläinen & Eero Kettunen & Mika Marttunen & Harri Ehtamo, 2001. "Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 331-353, July.
    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. Spyros NIAVIS & Theodora PAPATHEOCHARI & Harry COCCOSSIS, 2019. "Supporting Stakeholder Analysis Within Iczm Process In Small And Medium-Sized Mediterranean Coastal Cities With The Use Of Q-Method," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 53-74, February.

    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. Frank van Kouwen & Carel Dieperink & Paul P. Schot & Martin J. Wassen, 2007. "Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders," Working Papers 2007.52, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. G Montibeller & V Belton, 2006. "Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options—a review," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 779-791, July.
    3. Montibeller, Gilberto & Belton, Valerie, 2009. "Qualitative operators for reasoning maps: Evaluating multi-criteria options with networks of reasons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 829-840, June.
    4. Frank van Kouwen & Card Dieperink & Paul P Schot & Martin J Wassen, 2009. "Computer-Supported Cognitive Mapping for Participatory Problem Structuring," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 63-81, January.
    5. G Montibeller & V Belton & F Ackermann & L Ensslin, 2008. "Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(5), pages 575-589, May.
    6. Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Montibeller, Gilberto & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2017. "Modelling multicriteria value interactions with Reasoning Maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1054-1071.
    7. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    8. Anna Scolobig & Johan Lilliestam, 2016. "Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    10. Raffaele Giordano & Elisabetta Preziosi & Emanuele Romano, 2013. "Integration of local and scientific knowledge to support drought impact monitoring: some hints from an Italian case study," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(1), pages 523-544, October.
    11. Martin Van Bueren & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32, March.
    12. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    13. Sébastien Damart, 2010. "A Cognitive Mapping Approach to Organizing the Participation of Multiple Actors in a Problem Structuring Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 505-526, September.
    14. Christine Byrch & Kate Kearins & Markus Milne & Richard Morgan, 2007. "Sustainable “what”? A cognitive approach to understanding sustainable development," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 4(1), pages 26-52, March.
    15. Marchant, Thierry, 1999. "Cognitive maps and fuzzy implications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 626-637, May.
    16. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Xiao Deng & Xi Guo & Yenchun Jim Wu & Min Chen, 2021. "Perceived Environmental Dynamism Promotes Entrepreneurial Team Member’s Innovation: Explanations Based on the Uncertainty Reduction Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-12, February.
    18. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    19. Elisabetta Marinelli & Yannis Tolias & Federica Bertamino & Michalis Metaxas & Jennifer Grisorio, 2018. "Squaring the circle: lessons from the role-playing exercises on S3 regional and multi-level governance," JRC Research Reports JRC113434, Joint Research Centre.
    20. Yanliu Lin & Kasper Benneker, 2022. "Assessing collaborative planning and the added value of planning support apps in The Netherlands," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 391-410, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:feemnr:9555. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.