Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making

Abstract

Including stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision making is in many countries a legal requirement and is widely seen as beneficial as it can help increase decision legitimacy, likelihood of implementation, and quality of the outcome. Whereas the theoretical literature on stakeholder engagement is large, less attention has been devoted to comparing and discussing different methodological approaches. Here, we compare three approaches-multi-criteria analysis, plural rationality theory, and scenario construction-that include stakeholders' perspectives in environmental decision making. We find differences between the approaches concerning the assumptions about stakeholder rationality and whether experts and/or stakeholders are in charge of framing the problem. Further differences concern the type of data input from stakeholders and how it is used by the experts, as well as the role of stakeholders and whether they are involved early-already for identifying options-or later in the process, for evaluating or ranking alternatives analyzed by the experts. The choice of approach thus predetermines the type and depth of stakeholder engagement. No approach is "better" than another, but they are suited for different problems and research aims: the choice of the approach, however, has a large impact on the results.

Ranking of Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the New Housing Development Projects: Case of the Baltic States

“…Experts, designers, developers and other stakeholders should be introduced as key participants in this process. As proposed by Scolobig and Lilliestam [74], "stakeholders' perspectives can be included in the shape of qualitative, quantitative, or mixed data, and often a translation of qualitative views into alternatives, technical options, models, or scenarios-including quantification efforts adds difficulty and complexity to the process, but can also enrich the final outcome". 2.…”

Fuzzy Cognitive Map-Based Modeling of Social Acceptance to Overcome Uncertainties in Establishing Waste Biorefinery Facilities

“…For our case, the most important variant is the one that corresponds to Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE), as emphasis is given mostly to stakeholder engagement in making decisions and also on the operational framework useful to answer the following question: how can the local society and the local competent authorities integrate a plurality of technical aspects and social views into its ex-ante impact assessment in a coherent and transparent manner for the development and management of WBFs. According to Scolobig and Lilliestam (2016) the phases of SMCE are: (a) institutional analysis, (b) alternatives and criteria, (c) assessment of the criteria, and d) identification of the most desirable alternative. Finally, the most critical parameter in this impact assessment technique is to produce a decision policy based on the following three main objectives: 1.…”

How Can Humanities Interventions Promote Progress in the Environmental Sciences?

“…Research into those models suggests, however, that the humanities-centric approach of the Progress Method is both different and potentially more effective in transforming scientific environmental research processes. Scolobig and Lilliestam (2016) compare the dominant existing social science stakeholder engagement models for environmental decision making: Multi-criteria Analysis, Plural Rationality Theory, and Scenario Construction Approaches. The authors also rate the effectiveness of each model for translating stakeholder perspectives into options for solving environmental problems.…”