A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management

被引:94
作者
Regan, Helen M.
Colyvan, Mark
Markovchick-Nicholls, Lisa
机构
[1] San Diego State Univ, Dept Biol, San Diego, CA 92182 USA
[2] Univ Queensland, Philosophy Program, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
[3] Univ Queensland, Ctr Ecol, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
关键词
group decisions; consensus; negotiation; multi-criteria decision making; urban open space;
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.09.004
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Environmental management decisions typically lie at the interface of science and public policy. Consequently, these decisions involve a number of stakeholders with competing agendas and vested interests in the ultimate decision. In such cases, it is appropriate to adopt formal methods for consensus building to ensure transparent and repeatable decisions. In this paper, we use an environmental management case study to demonstrate the utility of a mathematical consensus convergence model in aggregating values (or weights) across groups. Consensus models are applicable when all parties agree to negotiate in order to resolve conflict. The advantage of this method is that it does not require that all members of the group reach agreement, often an impossible task in group decision making. Instead, it uses philosophical foundations in consensus building to aggregate group members' values in a way that guarantees convergence towards a single consensual value that summarizes the group position. We highlight current problems with ad hoc consensus and negotiation methods, provide justification for the adoption of formal consensus convergence models and compare the consensus convergence model with currently used methods for aggregating values across a group in a decision making context. The model provides a simple and transparent decision support tool for group decision making that is straightforward to implement. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:167 / 176
页数:10
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   The effects of variability and expectations on utilization of member expertise and group performance [J].
Baumann, MR ;
Bonner, BL .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 2004, 93 (02) :89-101
[2]   SELF-REGULATION OF COGNITIVE INFERENCE AND DECISION-PROCESSES [J].
BAUMEISTER, RF ;
NEWMAN, LS .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 1994, 20 (01) :3-19
[3]   Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences [J].
Bolloju, N .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2001, 128 (03) :499-508
[4]   Consensus versus conservation in the upper Colorado River Basin Recovery Implementation Program [J].
Brower, A ;
Reedy, C ;
Yelin-Kefer, J .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2001, 15 (04) :1001-1007
[5]  
Burgman M. A., 2005, RISKS DECISIONS CONS
[6]  
*CA STAT, 2000, CAL LEG PROJ
[7]  
COLLIGNON S, 2003, EUROPEAN REPUBLIC RE
[8]   Visualizing group decisions in the analytic hierarchy process [J].
Condon, E ;
Golden, B ;
Wasil, E .
COMPUTERS & OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2003, 30 (10) :1435-1445
[9]   Bioethics in the third millennium: Some critical anticipations [J].
Engelhardt, HT .
KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL, 1999, 9 (03) :225-243
[10]   The relationship of historic city form and contemporary greenway implementation: a comparison of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (USA) and Ottawa, Ontario (Canada) [J].
Erickson, DL .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2004, 68 (2-3) :199-221