Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options

  • Original Article
  • Published:
EURO Journal on Decision Processes

Abstract

Stakeholder participation is increasingly being embedded into decision-making processes from the local to the global scale. With limited resources to engage stakeholders, frameworks that allow decision-makers to make cost-effective choices are greatly needed. In this paper, we present a structured decision-making (SDM) framework that enables environmental decision-makers to prioritise different engagement options by assessing their relative cost-effectiveness. We demonstrate the application of this framework using a case study in biosecurity management. Drawing on a scenario of Panama Disease Tropical Race 4 (TR4) invasion in the Australian banana industry, we conducted 25 semi-structured interviews and held a workshop with key stakeholders to elicit their key concerns and convert them into four objectives-making more informed decisions, maximising buy-in, empowering people, and minimising the stress of biosecurity incidents. We also identified ten engagement alternatives at local, State/Territory, and National scales. Our results showed that options to engage local stakeholders and enable capacity to undertake adaptive approaches to biosecurity management are more cost-effective than engagement efforts that seek to build capacities at higher decision-making levels. More interestingly, using the weights provided by different stakeholder groups does not significantly affect the cost-effectiveness ranking of the ten options considered. Even though the results are contingent on the context of this biosecurity study, the SDM framework developed for maximising cost-effectiveness is transferable to other areas of environmental management. The efficient frontier generated by this framework allows decision-makers to examine the trade-offs between the costs and benefits and select the best portfolio for their investment. This approach provides a practical and transparent estimate of the return on investment for stakeholder engagement in highly complex or uncertain situations, as is usually the case for environmental issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, we use ‘management alternatives’ and ‘policy options’ interchangeably.

References

  • Al-Saidi M (2017) Conflicts and security in integrated water resources management. Environ Sci Policy 73:38–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker S, Chapin III F (2018) Going beyond “it depends:” the role of context in shaping participation in natural resource management. Ecol Soc 23(1):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09868-230120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Morse S, Shah RA (2012) Understanding stakeholder participation in research as part of sustainable development. J Environ Manag 101:13–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyaci B, Zografos KG, Geroliminis N (2015) An optimization framework for the development of efficient one-way car-sharing systems. Eur J Oper Res 240(3):718–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlow SA, Watson SR (1987) Structuring multiattribute value hierarchies. J Oper Res Soc 38(4):309–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalyse (2019) “Equity 3.” 2019 http://www.catalyzeconsulting.com/software/equity3/

  • Catalyze (2008) Hiview 3.2.0.7

  • Clemen RT, Reilly T (2001) Making hard decisions with decision tools. Pacific Grove. Duxbury Press, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Crost B, Duquennois C, Felter JH, Rees DI (2018) Climate change, agricultural production and civil conflict: evidence from the Philippines. J Environ Econ Manag 88:379–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S, McDonald RA (2017) Conflict in invasive species management. Front Ecol Environ 15(3):133–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalyander PS, Meyers M, Mattsson B, Steyer G, Godsey E, McDonald J, Byrnes M, Ford M (2016) Use of structured decision-making to explicitly incorporate environmental process understanding in management of coastal restoration projects: case study on barrier islands of the northern Gulf of Mexico. J Environ Manag 183:497–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Estevez RA, Walshe T, Burgman MA (2013) Capturing social impacts for decision-making: a multicriteria decision analysis perspective. Divers Distrib 19(5–6):608–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Estévez RA, Anderson CB, Pizarro JC, Burgman MA (2014) Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conserv Biol 29:19–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Farbotko C, Maclean K, Robinson C (2015) Performing a plant biosecurity emergency: the generation of disease absence and presence in Northern Australia banana plantations. Environ Plann A 48(4):771–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Llorente M, Martin-Lopez B, Gonzalez JA, Alcorlo P, Montes C (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biol Cons 141(12):2969–2983

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory RS, Keeney RL (2002) Making smarter environmental management decisions. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38(6):1601–1612

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1999) Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE (2010) Biosecurity: the changing face of invasion biology. Fifty years of invasion ecology. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 301–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyer-Raniga U, Treloar G (2000) A context for participation in sustainable development. Environ Manage 26(4):349–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives-preferences and value tradeoffs. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kompas T, Liu S (2013) Comparing multi-criteria analysis and cost benefit analysis for biosecurity: procedures, applications and the measurement of consequences, Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis

  • Lawrence RL, Deagen DA (2001) Choosing public participation methods for natural resources: a context-specific guide. Soc Natural Resourc 14(10):857–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Lecuyer L, White RM, Schmook B, Lemay V, Calmé S (2018) The construction of feelings of justice in environmental management: an empirical study of multiple biodiversity conflicts in Calakmul, Mexico. J Environ Manag 213:363–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Lienert J, Scholten L, Egger C, Maurer M (2015) Structured decision-making for sustainable water infrastructure planning and four future scenarios. Euro J Decis Process 3(1–2):107–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu S, Proctor W, Cook D (2010) Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management. Ecol Econ 69(12):2374–2382

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu S, Sheppard A, Kriticos D, Cook D, Liu S (2011) Incorporating uncertainty and social values in managing invasive alien species: a deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach. Biol Invasions 13(10):2323–2337

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu S, Walshe T, Long G, Cook D (2012) Evaluation of potential responses to invasive non-native species with structured decision making. Conserv Biol 26(3):539–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu JP, Aurambout O, Villalta JA, Edwards PJ, De Barro D, Kriticos DJ, Cook DC (2015) A structured war-gaming framework for managing extreme risks. Ecol Econ 116:369–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Luyet V, Schlaepfer R, Parlange MB, Buttler A (2012) A framework to implement Stakeholder participation in environmental projects. J Environ Manag 111:213–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynham J, Halpern BS, Blenckner T, Essington T, Estes J, Hunsicker M, Kappel C, Salomon AK, Scarborough C, Selkoe KA, Stier A (2017) Costly stakeholder participation creates inertia in marine ecosystems. Mar Policy 76:122–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclean K, Farbotko C, Mankad A, Robinson CJ, Curnock M, Collins K, McAllister RRJ (2018) Building social resilience to biological invasions. A case study of Panama Tropical Race 4 in the Australian Banana Industry. Geoforum 97:95–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclean K, Farbotko C, Robinson CJ (2019) Who do growers trust? Engaging biosecurity knowledges to negotiate risk management in the north Queensland banana industry, Australia. J Rural Stud 67:101–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio Selection. The Journal of Finance 7(1):77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin DM, Mazzotta M, Bousquin J (2018) Combining ecosystem services assessment with structured decision making to support ecological restoration planning. Environ Manage 62(3):608–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Alier J, Munda G, O'Neill J (1998) Weak comparability of values as afoundation for ecological economics. Ecol Econ 26:277–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Mustajoki J, Dufva M, Karjalainen TP (2015) How to design and realize participation of stakeholders in MCDA processes? A framework for selecting an appropriate approach. Euro J Decis Process 3(1–2):187–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Haag F, Belton V, Mustajoki J, Lienert J (2019a) Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 277(2):604–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Weber C, Åberg U, Lienert J (2019b) Identifying relevant objectives in environmental management decisions: an application to a national monitoring program for river restoration. Ecol Ind 101:851–866

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister RRJ, Robinson CJ, Maclean K, Perry S, Liu S (2017) Balancing collaboration with coordination: contesting eradication in the Australian plant pest and disease biosecurity system. Int J Commons 11(1):330

    Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, von Winterfeldt D (2015) Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal 35(7):1230–1251

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore SA, Brown G, Kobryn H, Strickland-Munro J (2017) Identifying conflict potential in a coastal and marine environment using participatory mapping. J Environ Manag 197:706–718

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostert EC, Pahl-Wostl Y, Rees B, Searle D, Tabara J, Tippett (2007) Social learning in European river-basin management: barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecol Soc 12(1):19

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda G, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (1995) Qualitative multicriteria methods for fuzzyevaluation problems—an illustration of economic–ecological evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 82:79–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Marttunen M (2017) Comparison of multi-criteria decision analytical software for supporting environmental planning processes. Environ Modell Softw 93:78–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Novoa A, Shackleton R, Canavan S, Cybèle C, Davies SJ, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Fried J, Gaertner M, Geerts S, Griffiths CL, Kaplan H, Kumschick S, Le Maitre DC, Measey GJ, Nunes AL, Richardson DM, Robinson TB, Touza J, Wilson JRU (2018) A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species. J Environ Manag 205:286–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne MJ, Rosenthal JS, Turner MA (2000) Meetings with costly participation. Am Econ Rev 90(4):927–943

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pegg KG, Moore NY, Bentley S (1996) Fusarium wilt of banana in Australia: a review. Aust J Agric Res 47(5):637–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD, Bana e Costa CA (2007) Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Ann Oper Res 154(1):51–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Ploetz RC (1994) Panama-disease - return of the first banana menace. Int J Pest Manag 40(4):326–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams WM, Sutherland WJ, Whitehouse A, Amar A, Lambert RA, Linnell JDC, Watt A, Gutierrez RJ (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28(2):100–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Cons 141(10):2417–2431

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Curzon R (2015) Stakeholder mapping for the governance of biosecurity: a literature review. J Integr Environ Sci 12(1):15–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933–1949

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson CJ, Maclean K, Hill R, Bock E, Rist P (2016) Participatory mapping to negotiate indigenous knowledge used to assess environmental risk. Sustain Sci 11(1):115–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, Windle J (2014) Public preferences for controlling an invasive species in public and private spaces. Land Use Policy 41:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Cons 144(8):2097–2104

    Google Scholar 

  • Shine R, Doody JS (2011) Invasive species control: understanding conflicts between researchers and the general community. Front Ecol Environ 9(7):400–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes KE, O’Neill KP, Montgomery WI, Dick JTA, Maggs CA, McDonald RA (2006) The importance of stakeholder engagement in invasive species management: a cross-jurisdictional perspective in Ireland. Biodivers Conserv 15(8):2829–2852

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc 11(2):39

    Google Scholar 

  • Touza J, Perez-Alonso A, Chas-Amil ML, Dehnen-Schmutz K (2014) Explaining the rank order of invasive plants by stakeholder groups. Ecol Econ 105:330–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, Weninger Q (2005) Meetings with costly participation: an empirical analysis. Rev Econ Stud 72(1):247–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout E, Behagel J, Ferranti F, Beunen R (2015) The construction of legitimacy in European nature policy: expertise and participation in the service of cost-effectiveness. Environ Politics 24(3):461–480

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Department for Communities and Local Government (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manuel. UK Department for Communities and Local Government, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Vinterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RS, Arvai JL (2006) Evaluating the quality of structured environmental management decisions. Environ Sci Technol 40(16):4831–4837

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanjanian H, Abdolabadi H, Niksokhan MH, Sarang A (2018) Influential third party on water right conflict: a Game Theory approach to achieve the desired equilibrium (case study: Ilam dam, Iran). J Environ Manage 214:283–294

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity, the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Programme and CSIRO. We are indebted to all those who participated in our workshop in January 2015. We thank Kerry Collins (CSIRO), Ryan McAllister (CSIRO) and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of the paper. We also thank Judit Lienert (Eawag), guest editor of this special issue, whose insights helped us to improve this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia

    Shuang Liu

  2. Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre, GPO Box 5012, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia

    Shuang Liu, Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson

  3. CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 2583, Dutton Park, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia

    Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson

Authors
  1. Shuang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsten Maclean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cathy Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuang Liu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 165 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, S., Maclean, K. & Robinson, C. A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options. EURO J Decis Process 7, 221–241 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-019-00103-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-019-00103-7

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation