Negotiated Complexity: Framing Multi-Criteria Decision Support in Environmental Health Practice

Keune, Hans; Springael, Johan; Keyser, Wim De

doi:10.4236/ajor.2013.31a015

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This agrees with a view of complexity as being-to a large extent-negotiated (Keune et al 2013b). Key issues in this negotiation are: (i) tolerance of diversity regarding types of information and actors that play a role in the decision-making process, (ii) how to deal with uncertainty and complexity, difference of opinion, and the weight of a vast amount of information processed and deliberated in the decision support procedure.…”

Section: Framing and Positional Objectivity: What Is True? How Do We supporting

confidence: 79%

The good, the bad and the ugly: framing debates on nature in a One Health community

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Originating in medical and veterinary spheres, the One Health concept stands as an open call for collaboration also between these disciplines or professions and those of environmental and social science. However, the communities of practice in question show uneasy or under-developed collaborations, due to a variety of factors. We argue that an important factor is the way issues are raised and questions are formulated, i.e., their framing. Based on complementary perspectives on health and knowledge, this overview provides an inter-and trans-disciplinary analysis of the role of the framing of « nature » in One Health discourses as a barrier or a facilitator to collaboration, as revealed by the scientific literature. We find that the lack of reflection by scientists about the framing under which they operate appears as a major factor of misunderstanding between disciplines, and a barrier for inter-and trans-disciplinary solutions to improve management of health risks and benefits. Hence, to build such solutions, framing will have to be a conscious and repeated step in the process, acknowledging and explaining the diversity of viewpoints and values. The interdisciplinary dialogues inherent in this process promote translation between scientific domains, policy-makers and citizens, with a critical but pluralistic recourse to various framings of health risks and benefits associated with nature, and a deep awareness of their practical and ethical consequences.

show abstract

Section: Framing and Positional Objectivity: What Is True? How Do We supporting

confidence: 79%

The good, the bad and the ugly: framing debates on nature in a One Health community

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These approaches also enable a normative focus to ensure issues around ethics, equity, and power are included in the decision-making process. The idea of a negotiated complexity (85) for decision support systems similarly supports more inclusion of social sciences in embracing complexity. We argue that participatory modeling should be a key component of any IAH initiative, as it enables the practical operationalization of an otherwise elusive holistic effort.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Systems Thinking in Practice: Participatory Modeling as a Foundation for Integrated Approaches to Health

Duboz

Echaubard²,

Promburom

et al. 2018

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One Health (OH), EcoHealth (EH), and Planetary Health (PH) share an interest in transdisciplinary efforts that bring together scientists, citizens, government and private sectors to implement contextualized actions that promote adaptive health management across human, animal and ecosystem interfaces. A key operational element underlying these Integrated Approaches to Health (IAH) is use of Systems Thinking as a set of tools for integration. In this paper we discuss the origins and epistemology of systems thinking and argue that participatory modeling, informed by both systems theory and expertise in facilitating engagement and social learning, can help ground IAH theoretically and support its development. Participatory modeling is iterative and adaptive, which is necessary to deal with complexity in practice. Participatory modeling (PM) methods actively involve affected interests and stakeholders to ground the field of inquiry in a specific social-ecological context. Furthermore, PM processes act to reconcile the diverse understandings of the empirical world that stem from divergent discipline and community viewpoints. In this perspective article, we argue that PM can support systems thinking in practice and is essential for IAH implementation. Accordingly we invite PH, OH, and EH practitioners to systematically incorporate specialists in systems science and social engagement and facilitation. This will enable the appropriate contextualization of research practice and interventions, and ensure a balanced representation of the roles and relationships of medical, biological, mathematical, and social disciplines. For completeness, funding schemes supporting IAH need to follow the same iterative, adaptive, and participative processes to accompany IAH projects throughout their implementation.

show abstract

“…aggregating unicriterion rankings into one ranking) (De Keyser and Springael, 2009). The AURORA method merges and compares the experts' rankings, respecting the ordinal character (De Keyser and Springael, 2009;Keune et al, 2013).…”

Section: Second Delphi Roundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability indicators for biobased chemicals: A Delphi study using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Schoubroeck

Springael

Dael

et al. 2019

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biobased chemistry has gained interest and has the potential to tackle some of the sustainability challenges the chemical industry must endure. Sustainability impacts need to be evaluated and monitored to highlight the advantages and pitfalls of different biobased routes over the entire product life cycle. This study aims for expert consensus concerning indicators needed and preferred for sustainability analysis of biobased chemicals in Europe. Experts are consulted by means of a Delphi method with stakeholders selected from three core groups: the private, public and academic sector. Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) is performed to gather data on the prioritization of the sustainability indicators per respondent. Afterwards, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is used to develop a consensus ranking among the experts. The results show that GHG emissions, market potential and acceptance of biobased materials are deemed the most crucial indicators for respectively environmental, economic and social sustainability. Expert consensus is positive in all three sustainability domains, with the strongest consensus measured for environmental sustainability showing a median Kendall's τ of 0.63 (τ ranging from -1 to 1) and the weakest consensus found within social sustainability showing a median Kendall's τ of 0.50. Further research can apply the ranked indicators on specific case studies to evaluate the practicability of the defined indicator set.

show abstract

Negotiated Complexity: Framing Multi-Criteria Decision Support in Environmental Health Practice

Cited by 7 publications

References 66 publications

The good, the bad and the ugly: framing debates on nature in a One Health community

The good, the bad and the ugly: framing debates on nature in a One Health community

Systems Thinking in Practice: Participatory Modeling as a Foundation for Integrated Approaches to Health

Sustainability indicators for biobased chemicals: A Delphi study using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About