Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 224–236 | Cite as

Structuring international development decisions: confronting trade-offs between land use and community development in Costa Rica

  • Joseph Árvai
  • Delanie Kellon
  • Ramón León
  • Robin Gregory
  • Robert Richardson
Article

Abstract

For more than half a century, research and practice in international development has focused on improving the quality of life of people living in developing regions of the world. Recently, researchers, practitioners, and policy makers have recognized the need to blend insights from experts and community stakeholders in development decisions. Research in the decision sciences tells us that these kinds of multiparty and multiattribute decisions are extremely challenging. However, recent experience using structured decision-making (SDM) approaches suggests that the quality of both expert and stakeholder input, and resulting decisions, can be improved by ensuring that people address a series of basic principles relating to identifying objectives and their associated attributes, estimating the consequences of proposed actions, and directly confronting trade-offs that arise during the evaluation of management alternatives. In this paper, we provide an overview of SDM and then discuss a research initiative aimed at applying the approach to a pressing international development problem in rural Costa Rica: management of the lucrative but also environmentally destructive pineapple industry. The objectives of this research were twofold: First, we sought to help inform policy decisions by eliciting land management preferences regarding the pineapple industry from people living in communities surrounding plantations. Second, we evaluated the effectiveness of the SDM approach in a developing community context.

Keywords

Structured decision making Decision support Expertise Trade-offs Developing countries Costa Rica 

References

  1. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Wilhams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80:64–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol 52:27–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alpizar F, Carlsson F (2003) Policy implications and analysis of the determinants of travel mode choice: an application of choice experiments to metropolitan Costa Rica. Environ Dev Econ 8:603–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvai JL, Gregory R (2003) Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environ Sci Technol 37:1469–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arvai J, Post K (2012) Risk management in a developing country context: improving decisions about point-of-use water treatment among the rural poor in Tanzania. Risk Anal 32:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arvai JL, Gregory R, Ohlson D, Blackwell BA, Gray RW (2006) Letdowns, wake-up calls, and constructed preferences: people’s responses to fuel and wildfire risks. J For 104:173–181Google Scholar
  7. Arvai JL, Gregory R, Zaksek M (2007) Improving wildfire risk management decisions. In: Martin W, Martin I, Raish C (eds) Wildfire and fuels management: human perceptions and management implications. RFF Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Baron J (2000) Measuring value tradeoffs: problems and some solutions. In: Weber EU, Baron J, Loomes G (eds) Conflict and tradeoffs in decision making: essays in Honor of Jane Beattie. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Baron J, Spranca M (1997) Protected values. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 70:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bessette D, Arvai J, Campbell-Arvai V (2014) Decision support framework for developing regional energy strategies. Environ Sci Technol 48:1401–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bond S, Carlson K, Keeney RL (2008) Generating objectives: can decision makers articulate what they want? Manag Sci 54:56–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boxall P, Adamowicz W, Williams M, Swait J, Louviere J (1996) Comparison of stated preference approaches to the measurement of environmental values. Ecol Econ 18:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carson RT, Louviere JJ, Anderson DA, Arabie P, Bunch DS, Hensher DA, Johnson RM, Kuhfeld WF, Steinberg D, Swait J, Timmermans H, Wiley JB (1994) Experimental analysis of choice. Mark Lett 5:351–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22:953–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clemen RT (2004) Making hard decisions: an introduction to decision analysis. PWS-Kent Publishing Co., BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Failing L, Gregory R, Harstone M (2007) Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: a decision-focused approach. Ecol Econ 64:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory R (2003) Incorporating value tradeoffs into community-based environmental risk decisions. Environ Values 11:461–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregory R, Failing L (2002) Using decision analysis to encourage sound deliberation: water use planning in British Columbia, Canada. J Policy Anal Manag 21:492–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gregory R, Arvai JL, McDaniels T (2001a) Value-focused thinking for environmental risk consultations. Res Soc Probl Public Policy 9:249–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gregory R, McDaniels T, Fields D (2001b) Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: creating insights through structured environmental decisions. J Policy Anal Manag 20:415–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregory R, Arvai J, Gerber L (2013) Structuring decisions for managing threatened and endangered species in a changing climate. Conserv Biol 27:1212–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammond J, Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1999) Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business School Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking. A path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Kellon DS, Arvai J (2011) Five propositions for improving decision making about the environment in developing communities: insights from the decision sciences. J Environ Manag 92:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenney L, Vardhan M, Arvai J, Catacutan D (2014). Decision aiding for international multi-party carbon management programs: REDD and REDD+ in Vietnam. Soc Nat Resour (in press) Google Scholar
  30. Kirkwood CW (1997) Strategic decision making: multiobjective analysis with spreadsheets. Duxbury Press, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  31. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006) The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lichtenstein S, Gregory R, Irwin J (2007) What’s bad is easy: taboo values, affect, and cognition. Judgm Decis Making 2:169–188Google Scholar
  33. Louviere JJ (1988) Analysing decision making: metric conjoint analysis. Sage University Papers Series in Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  34. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitchell R, Carson R (1995) Current issues in the design, administration, and analysis of contingent valuation surveys. In: Johansson P, Kristrom B, Maler K (eds) Current issues in environmental economics. Manchester University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. National Research Council (2007) Strengthening science-based decision making in developing countries. Agriculture and water management. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Ostrom E (1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev 24:1073–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1992) Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 43:87–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richardson RB, Kellon D, León R, Arvai J (2013) Using choice experiments to understand household tradeoffs regarding pineapple production and environmental management in Costa Rica. J Environ Manag 127:308–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Am Psychol 50:364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tetlock PE (2000) Coping with trade-offs: Psychological constraints and political implications. In: Lupia A, Popkin SL, McCubbins MD (eds) Elements of reason: cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Tetlock PE, Kristel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS (2000) The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo tradeoffs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J Pers Soc Psychol 78:853–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson RS, Arvai JL (2006) When less is more: how affect influences preferences when comparing low and high-risk options. J Risk Res 9:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson RS, Arvai JL (2010) Why less is more: exploring affect-based value neglect. J Risk Res 13:399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Árvai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Delanie Kellon
    • 3
  • Ramón León
    • 4
  • Robin Gregory
    • 2
  • Robert Richardson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Decision ResearchEugeneUSA
  3. 3.Department of Community SustainabilityMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.West Florida Research and Education CenterUniversity of FloridaJayUSA

Personalised recommendations