			Home About us Contact

Stakeholder Viewpoints (stakeholder + viewpoint)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Life Sciences	40%

Selected Abstracts

On scientists' discomfort in fisheries advisory science: the example of simulation-based fisheries management-strategy evaluations

FISH AND FISHERIES, Issue 2 2010
Sarah B M Kraak
Abstract Scientists feel discomfort when they are asked to create certainty, where none exists, for use as an alibi in policy-making. Recently, the scientific literature has drawn attention to some pitfalls of simulation-based fisheries management-strategy evaluation (MSE). For example, while estimates concerning central tendencies of distributions of simulation outcomes are usually fairly robust because they are conditioned on ample data, estimates concerning the tails of distributions (such as the probability of falling below a critical biomass) are usually conditional on few data and thus often rely on assumptions that have no strong knowledge base. The clients of scientific advice, such as the European Commission, are embracing the mechanization of the evaluation of proposed Harvest Control Rules against the precautionary principle and management objectives. Where the fisheries management institutions aim for simple answers from the scientists, giving ,green/red light' to a proposed management strategy, the scientists are forced into a split position between satisfying the demands of their advisory role and living up to the standards of scientific rigour. We argue against the mechanization of scientific advice that aims to incorporate all relevant processes into one big model algorithm that, after construction, can be run without circumspection. We rather encourage that fisheries advice should be a dynamic process of expert judgement, incorporating separate parallel concurrent, lines of scientific evidence, from quantitative and qualitative modelling exercises and factual knowledge of the biology and the fishery dynamics. This process can be formalized to a certain degree and can easily accommodate stakeholder viewpoints. [source]

Conversations in conservation: revealing and dealing with language differences in environmental conflicts

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, Issue 4 2008
Thomas J. Webb
Summary 1Applied ecology aims to translate research into policy recommendations. However, conflicts frequently develop if these recommendations propose a contentious course of action. A first step towards addressing such conflicts is to attempt to understand the values underpinning stakeholder viewpoints. 2We develop a computer-aided Content Analysis to analyse the language surrounding environmental conflicts for insights into stakeholder values. Using the conflict arising over proposals to cull hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus on several Scottish islands, we show how different stakeholder groups frame the problem in different ways. 3Stakeholder groups supporting different courses of action (culling vs. translocating hedgehogs) use different arguments, the former emphasizing conservation and biodiversity, the latter focusing on animal welfare. Our method results in a graphical representation of this failure to agree on a common way to frame the issue. 4Including texts obtained from media sources illustrates how the media can exacerbate environmental conflicts through the issues they emphasize and the vocabulary they use. 5Synthesis and applications. Our method provides a simple means to quantify levels of stakeholder disagreement concerning potentially contentious environmental issues. Our results provide a starting point for the development of a quantitative, graphical tool for managers, where repeated analysis will aid in monitoring and managing conflicts. In addition, we provide a clear example of the role of societal attitudes influencing the effective implementation of ecological advice, which should encourage ecologists to become more aware of the social environment into which policy recommendations are to be launched and to ensure that their advice does not ignore important stakeholder values. [source]

The acceptability to stakeholders of mandatory nutritional labelling in France and the UK , findings from the PorGrow project

JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION & DIETETICS, Issue 1 2010
M. Holdsworth
Abstract Background:, Implementing a European Union (EU)-wide mandatory nutrition labelling scheme has been advocated as part a multi-pronged strategy to tackle obesity. The type of scheme needs to be acceptable to all key stakeholders. This study explored stakeholders' viewpoints of labelling in two contrasting food cultures (France and the UK) to see whether attitudes were influenced by sectoral interests and/or national context. Methods:, Using Multi Criteria Mapping, a decision analysis tool that assesses stakeholder viewpoints, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered during tape-recorded interviews. In France and the UK, 21 comparable stakeholders appraised nutritional labelling with criteria of their own choosing (i.e. feasibility, societal benefits, social acceptability, efficacy in addressing obesity, additional health benefits) and three criteria relating to cost (to industry; public sector; individuals). When scoring, interviewees provided both optimistic (best case) and pessimistic (worst case) judgements. Results:, Overall, mandatory nutritional labelling was appraised least favourably in France. Labelling performed worse under optimistic (best case) scenarios in France, for five out of eight sets of criteria. French stakeholders viewed labelling as expensive, having fewer benefits to society and as being marginally less effective than UK stakeholders did. However, French interviewees thought implementing labelling was feasible and would provide additional health benefits. British and French stakeholders made similar quantitative judgements on how socially acceptable mandatory labelling would be. Conclusions:, There is agreement between some stakeholder groups in the two different countries, especially food chain operators. However, cultural differences emerged that could influence the impact of an EU-wide mandatory labelling scheme in both countries. [source]

Zoning Marine Protected Areas through Spatial Multiple-Criteria Analysis: the Case of the Asinara Island National Marine Reserve of Italy

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, Issue 2 2002
Ferdinando Villa
Systematic, objective approaches to site selection and design can help reconcile conflicting interests, represent stakeholders' viewpoints fairly and evenly, and extend the scope of planning studies from single reserves to networks. We illustrate the use of spatial multiple-criteria analysis for determining the suitability of marine areas for different uses and levels of protection. This technique couples geographic information systems (GIS) for land assessment and evaluation with a formal statement of the design priorities as seen from the different viewpoints of all involved stakeholders. The planning process, while staying focused on the main purposes of conservation and feasibility, involves all the main interest groups in the definition of priorities so that conflicts and tensions are kept under control. We used multiple-criteria analysis to integrate objective data with the contrasting priorities of different stakeholders in the planning of a marine protected area. The results of the analysis can be used to define an optimal spatial arrangement of different protection levels. As a case study, we developed a zoning plan for one of the first marine protected areas in Italy, the Asinara Island National Marine Reserve. Resumen: Puesto que el papel de las áreas marinas protegidas está siendo mejor entendido y se está volviendo más sofisticado, la planeación para abordar eficientemente estas áreas se está volviendo más complicada para las personas que toman decisiones. Las metodologías sistemáticas y objetivas para la selección de sitios y el diseño de reservas pueden ayudar a reconciliar los conflictos de intereses, representar los puntos de vista de los usuarios de manera equitativa y balanceada y extender la dimensión de los estudios de planeación para reservas individuales o en redes. Ilustramos el uso de un análisis de criterios espaciales múltiples para determinar la viabilidad de áreas marinas para diferentes usos y niveles de protección. Esta técnica une sistemas de información geográfica (GIS) para estimación y evaluación de suelos con una declaración de prioridades de diseño tal y como es percibida por los diferentes usuarios involucrados. El proceso de planeación, al mismo tiempo que se enfoca en los propósitos principales de la conservación y en su viabilidad, involucra a los principales grupos interesados en la definición de prioridades de tal manera que los conflictos y tensiones pueden ser manejadas. Utilizamos el análisis de criterios espaciales múltiples para integrar datos objetivos con las prioridades contrastantes de los diferentes usuarios en la planeación de un área marina protegida. Los resultados del análisis pueden ser usados como una guía para definir arreglos espaciales óptimos con diferentes niveles de protección. Como caso de estudio desarrollamos un plan de desarrollo de zonificación para una de las áreas marinas protegidas de Italia, la Reserva Nacional Marina de la Isla Asinara. [source]