Participatory multi-stakeholder assessment of alternative development scenarios in contested landscapes

被引:9
|
作者
Kim, Milena Kiatkoski [1 ]
Alvarez-Romero, Jorge G. [2 ]
Wallace, Ken [1 ]
Pannell, David [1 ]
Hill, Rosemary [3 ,4 ]
Adams, Vanessa M. [5 ]
Douglas, Michael [6 ]
Pressey, Robert L. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Australia, Ctr Environm Econ & Policy, Sch Agr & Environm, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
[2] James Cook Univ, ARC Ctr Excellence Coral Reef Studies, Townsville, Qld 4810, Australia
[3] CSIRO, Cairns, Qld 4878, Australia
[4] James Cook Univ, Div Trop Environm & Soc, Cairns, Qld 4878, Australia
[5] Univ Tasmania, Sch Technol Environm & Design, Hobart, Tas 7001, Australia
[6] Univ Western Australia, Sch Biol Sci, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
Participatory scenario planning; Subjective wellbeing; Social impact evaluation; Transdisciplinary; Developing northern Australia; Stakeholder participation; NATURAL-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; INDIGENOUS LAND; ORD RIVER; AUSTRALIANS; PROGRAMS; PEOPLE;
D O I
10.1007/s11625-021-01056-0
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Participatory scenario planning (PSP) has mainly concerned scenario development and outreach, with less emphasis on scenario assessment. However, eliciting stakeholder responses to scenarios, focusing on subjective wellbeing, can increase the legitimacy, relevance, and applicability of PSP. We developed a PSP exercise with a multi-stakeholder, cross-cultural group in the Fitzroy River (Martuwarra) basin in Western Australia. Four scenarios were developed collaboratively, each describing alternative development pathways in the basin by 2050. We held two scenario assessment workshops: a multi-stakeholder workshop and a workshop with Traditional Owners (Aboriginal Australians) only. We first asked participants to consider and discuss the current situation in the basin regarding how well nine categories of wellbeing were satisfied. Then, for each scenario, participants assessed and scored the change in each wellbeing category relative to the current situation. Participants' ratings followed a similar pattern in both workshops, except for the scenario with strong policy and increased large-scale irrigation, which was scored mostly positively by the multi-stakeholder group, and mostly negatively by Traditional Owners. We identified different discourses that help to explain these results: (a) scenarios with large-scale agriculture, or with poorly regulated development, would increase the money circulating in the region, and benefits would trickle down to local communities through employment, enhancing most wellbeing categories; and (b) such modes of development might create jobs but could negatively impact other areas of wellbeing, potentially affecting culturally or environmentally significant places and increasing social inequities. We discuss how these results can support planning in the region, and how trade-offs were approached.
引用
收藏
页码:221 / 241
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Participatory multi-stakeholder assessment of alternative development scenarios in contested landscapes
    Milena Kiatkoski Kim
    Jorge G. Álvarez-Romero
    Ken Wallace
    David Pannell
    Rosemary Hill
    Vanessa M. Adams
    Michael Douglas
    Robert L. Pressey
    [J]. Sustainability Science, 2022, 17 : 221 - 241
  • [2] A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on the Use of Alternative Test Strategies for Nanomaterial Safety Assessment
    Nel, Andre E.
    Nasser, Elina
    Godwin, Hilary
    Avery, David
    Bahadori, Tina
    Bergeson, Lynn
    Beryt, Elizabeth
    Bonner, James C.
    Boverhof, Darrell
    Carter, Janet
    Castranova, Vince
    DeShazo, J. R.
    Hussain, Saber M.
    Kane, Agnes B.
    Klaessig, Frederick
    Kuempel, Eileen
    Lafranconi, Mark
    Landsiedel, Robert
    Malloy, Timothy
    Miller, Mary Beth
    Morris, Jeffery
    Moss, Kenneth
    Oberdorster, Gunter
    Pinkerton, Kent
    Pleus, Richard C.
    Shatkin, Jo Anne
    Thomas, Russell
    Tolaymat, Thabet
    Wang, Amy
    Wong, Jeffrey
    [J]. ACS NANO, 2013, 7 (08) : 6422 - 6433
  • [3] Rethinking Diplomatic and Development Outcomes through Sport: Toward a Participatory Paradigm of Multi-Stakeholder Diplomacy
    Pamment, James
    [J]. DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT, 2016, 27 (02) : 231 - 250
  • [4] Environmental capability development in a multi-stakeholder network setting: Dynamic learning through multi-stakeholder interactions
    Baranova, Polina
    [J]. BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2022, 31 (07) : 3406 - 3420
  • [5] Cultural Landscapes: A Multi-Stakeholder Methodological Approach to Support Widespread and Shared Tourism Development Strategies
    Della Spina, Lucia
    Giorno, Claudia
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (13)
  • [6] Multi-Stakeholder Cybersecurity Risk Assessment for Data Protection
    Mollaeefar, Majid
    Siena, Alberto
    Ranise, Silvio
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 17TH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON E-BUSINESS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS (SECRYPT), VOL 1, 2020, : 349 - 356
  • [7] Effects of multi-stakeholder platforms on multi-stakeholder innovation networks: Implications for research for development interventions targeting innovations at scale
    Sartas, Murat
    Schut, Marc
    Hermans, Frans
    van Asten, Piet
    Leeuwis, Cees
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (06):
  • [8] Participatory Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms in Integrated Landscape Initiatives
    Koen Kusters
    Louise Buck
    Maartje de Graaf
    Peter Minang
    Cora van Oosten
    Roderick Zagt
    [J]. Environmental Management, 2018, 62 : 170 - 181
  • [9] Power in participatory processes: reflections from multi-stakeholder workshops in the Horn of Africa
    J. Michael Denney
    Paul Michael Case
    Alexander Metzger
    Maria Ivanova
    Araya Asfaw
    [J]. Sustainability Science, 2018, 13 : 879 - 893
  • [10] Power in participatory processes: reflections from multi-stakeholder workshops in the Horn of Africa
    Denney, J. Michael
    Case, Paul Michael
    Metzger, Alexander
    Ivanova, Maria
    Asfaw, Araya
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE, 2018, 13 (03) : 879 - 893