4.5 Article

The Decision Analysis Interview Approach in the Collaborative Management of a Large Regulated Water Course

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 42, Issue 6, Pages 1026-1042

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-008-9200-9

Keywords

Multicriteria decision analysis; Public participation; Conflict management; Stakeholder values; Lake regulation; Sustainable management

Funding

  1. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Academy of Finland [PRIMEREG, 52793)]
  2. Maa-ja vesitekniikan tuki ry, and Finnish Environment Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are always conflicting goals in the management of large water courses. However, by involving stakeholders actively in the planning and decision-making processes, it is possible to work together toward commonly acceptable solutions. In this article, we describe how we applied interactive multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in a collaborative process which aimed at an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable water course regulation policy. The stakeholders' opinions about the alternative regulation schemes and the relative importance of their impacts were elicited with the HIPRE software. Altogether, 20 personal interactive decision analysis interviews (DAIs) were carried out with the stakeholders. Our experience suggests that the DAIs can considerably improve the quality and efficiency of the collaborative planning process. By improving communication and understanding of the decision situation in the steering group, the approach helped to develop a consensus solution in a case having strong conflicts of interest. In order to gain the full benefits of the MCDA approach, interactive preference elicitation is vital. It is also essential to integrate the approach tightly into the planning and decision-making process. The project's home pages are available to the public http://www.paijanne.hut http://www.paijanne.hut.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available