Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/26535
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Mukherjee, Nibedita | - |
dc.contributor.author | Zabala, Aiora | - |
dc.contributor.author | HUGE, Jean | - |
dc.contributor.author | Nyumba, Tobias Ochieng | - |
dc.contributor.author | Esmail, Blal Adem | - |
dc.contributor.author | Sutherland, William J. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-08-02T09:56:11Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-08-02T09:56:11Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 9(1), p. 54-63 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2041-210X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/26535 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Decision-making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision-making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions. There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem. In decision-making, the three critical aspects are what decision is to be made, who makes the decisions and how the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on how decisions can be made. We compare six techniques: Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Interviews, Q methodology, Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi technique specifically in the context of biodiversity conservation. All of these techniques (with the exception of MCDA) help in understanding human values and the underlying perspectives which shape decisions. Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision-making process. While interviews and FGD are well-known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under-used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where conflict is low, and a consensus is needed urgently, the Nominal Group technique may be more suitable. We present a nuanced synthesis of methods aimed at users. The comparison of the different techniques might be useful for project managmeers, academics or practitioners in the planning phases of their projects and help in making better inford methodological choices. | - |
dc.description.sponsorship | Fondation Philippe Wiener - Maurice Anspach fellowship; Scriven post doctoral fellowship; Belgian National Fund for Research; KLIMOS-ACROPOLIS; Cambridge Overseas Trusts; Wildlife Conservation Society; Wildlife Conservation Network; WildiZe Foundation; EU Horizon 2020 ESMERALDA [642007]; Arcadia; NERC [NE/R006946/1] | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | WILEY | - |
dc.rights | © 2018 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. | - |
dc.subject.other | conservation; decision-making; Delphi technique; focus group discussion; interview; multi-criteria decision; nominal group technique; Q methodology | - |
dc.subject.other | conservation; decision-making; Delphi technique; focus group discussion; interview; multi-criteria decision; nominal group technique; Q methodology | - |
dc.title | Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision-making | - |
dc.type | Journal Contribution | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 63 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 54 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 9 | - |
local.format.pages | 10 | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.jcat | A1 | - |
dc.description.notes | [Mukherjee, Nibedita; Sutherland, William J.] Univ Cambridge, Dept Zool, Cambridge, England. [Mukherjee, Nibedita] Univ Exeter, Ctr Ecol & Conservat, Coll Life & Environm Sci, Exeter, Devon, England. [Zabala, Aiora] Cambridge Ctr Environm Energy & Nat Resource Gove, Dept Land Econ, Cambridge, England. [Huge, Jean] Univ Ghent, Ctr Sustainable Dev, Ghent, Belgium. [Huge, Jean] Hasselt Univ, Belgium Ctr Environm Sci, Hasselt, Belgium. [Huge, Jean] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Syst Ecol & Resource Management Unit, Brussels, Belgium. [Huge, Jean] Vrije Univ Brussel, Gen Bot & Nat Management, Brussels, Belgium. [Nyumba, Tobias Ochieng] Univ Cambridge, Dept Geog, Cambridge, England. [Esmail, Blal Adem] Univ Trento, Dept Civil Environm & Mech Engn, Trento, Italy. | - |
local.publisher.place | HOBOKEN | - |
local.type.refereed | Refereed | - |
local.type.specified | Article | - |
local.class | dsPublValOverrule/author_version_not_expected | - |
local.type.programme | H2020 | - |
local.relation.h2020 | 642007 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/2041-210X.12940 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | 000419821200007 | - |
item.fullcitation | Mukherjee, Nibedita; Zabala, Aiora; HUGE, Jean; Nyumba, Tobias Ochieng; Esmail, Blal Adem & Sutherland, William J. (2018) Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision-making. In: METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 9(1), p. 54-63. | - |
item.accessRights | Open Access | - |
item.contributor | Mukherjee, Nibedita | - |
item.contributor | Zabala, Aiora | - |
item.contributor | HUGE, Jean | - |
item.contributor | Nyumba, Tobias Ochieng | - |
item.contributor | Esmail, Blal Adem | - |
item.contributor | Sutherland, William J. | - |
item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
item.validation | ecoom 2019 | - |
crisitem.journal.issn | 2041-210X | - |
crisitem.journal.eissn | 2041-2096 | - |
Appears in Collections: | Research publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
mukherjee 1.pdf | Published version | 965.45 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
SCOPUSTM
Citations
24
checked on Sep 5, 2020
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
106
checked on Jul 13, 2024
Page view(s)
342
checked on Sep 5, 2022
Download(s)
382
checked on Sep 5, 2022
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.