A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 80, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 167-176

  Regan, Helen M ^a   Colyvan, Mark ^b   Markovchick Nicholls, Lisa ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Consensus; Group decisions; Multi criteria decision making; Negotiation; Urban open space

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; NEGOTIATION PROCESS; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLICY MAKING; URBAN AREA;

ARTICLE; CONFLICT; CONSENSUS; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; POLICY; SCIENCE; URBAN AREA;

EID: 33646778512     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Baumann M.R., and Bonner B.L. The effects of variability and expectations on utilization of member expertise and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 93 2 (2004) 89-101
2. Baumeister R.F., and Newman L.A. Self-regulation of cognitive inference and decision processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 (1994) 3-19
3. Bolloju N. Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences. European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 499-508
4. Brower A., Reedy C., and YelinKefer J. Consensus versus conservation in the Upper Colorado River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. Conservation Biology 15 4 (2001) 1001-1007
5. Burgman M.A. Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management (2005), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
6. California, State of. 2000. The California Legacy Project Archive, http://legacy.ca.gov/ 2005.
7. Collignon S. The European Republic: Reflections on the Political Economy and Future Constitution (2003), Federal Trust for Education and Research, London
8. Condon E., Golden B., and Wasil E. Visualizing group decisions in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Operations Research 30 (2003) 1435-1445
9. Englehardt H.T. Bioethics in the third millennium: some critical anticipations. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9 (1999) 225-243
10. Erickson D.L. The relationship of historic city form and contemporary greenway implementation: a comparison of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (USA) and Ottawa, Ontario (Canada). Landscape and Urban Planning 68 2-3 (2004) 199-221
11. Fearon R. Linking stakeholders and decision makers with science in managing the coastal water environment: case studies from urban, industrial and rural subtropical catchments in Australia. Water Science and Technology 47 6 (2003) 179-184
12. Gilman E. Integrated management to address the incidental mortality of seabirds in longline fisheries. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 11 5 (2001) 391-414
13. Gregory R., Daniels T., and Fields D. Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20 3 (2001) 415-432
14. Hamilton R.W. Why do people suggest what they do not want? Using context effects to influence others' choices. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (2003) 492-506
15. Harrison C., and Burgess J. Valuing nature in context: the contribution of common-good approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 9 (2000) 1115-1130
16. Innes J.E., and Booher D.E. Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65 1 (1999) 9-26
17. Kelley H.H., and Thibaut J.W. Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence (1978), Wiley/Interscience, New York
18. Kennedy D.S., and Loard W.B. Analysis of Institutional Innovation in the Natural Resources and Environmental Realm: The Emergence of Alternative Problem-Solving Strategies in the American West (1999), University of Colorado Natural Resources Law, Boulder
19. Lehrer K. Conflict and consensus. Initiative: The Udall Center for Public Policy (Newsletter) 5.2 1-3 (1993) 11-13
20. Lehrer K. Consensus, negotiation and mediation. In: Kacprzyk J., Nurmi H., and Fedrizzi M. (Eds). Consensus Under Fuzziness (1997), Kluwer, Boston 3-15
21. Lehrer K., and Wagner C. Rational Consensus in Science and Society (1981), Reidel, Dordrecht
22. Lubell M. Cognitive conflict and consensus building in the National Estuaries Program. American Behavioral Scientist 44 4 (2000) 629-648
23. Margerum R.D. Collaborative planning-building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21 3 (2002) 237-253
24. Murnigham J.K., Babcock L., Thompson L.L., and Pillutla M. The information dilemma in negotiations: effects of experience, incentives, and integrative potential. International Journal of Conflict Management 10 (1999) 313-339
25. Ohtsubo Y., and Masuchi A. Effects of status difference and group size in group decision making. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 7 2 (2004) 161-172
26. Poitras J., Bowen R., and Wiggin J. Challenges to the use of consensus building in integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management 46 (2003) 391-405
27. Regan, H.M., Glickfeld, M., Barnett, H., Loux, J., McCarty, P., Doyle, R., Edelman, P., Kamradt, D., Beier, P., Luke, C., Denzler, S., Woodbury, J., Miller, C., Dinno, R., Dangermond, P., Metz, J., Angle, M., Greenwood, G., Scott, T., Davis, F., Beyeler, M., Rayburn, R., 2002. Report of NCEAS/California Legacy Project Workshop on Urban Open Space Conservation Criteria. A Report to The Resources Agency of California and the California Legacy Project, pp. 26.
28. Regan, H.M., Ben-Haim, Y., Langford, B., Wilson, W.G., Lundberg, P., Andelman, S.J., Burgman, M.A., 2005. Robust decision making under severe uncertainty for conservation management. Ecological Applications. 15 (4), pp. 1471-1477.
29. Ridgley M.A. Equity and the determination of accountability for greenhouse-gas reduction. Central European Journal for Operations Research and Economics 3 3 (1993) 223-242
30. Saaty T.L. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, setting priorities, resource allocation (1980), McGraw-Hill, London
31. Steinel W., and De Dreu C.K.W. Social Motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 3 (2004) 419-434
32. The Trust for Public Land, 2004. Benefits of Urban Open Space, http://www.tpl.org.
33. Thomas-Hunt N.C., Ogden T.Y., and Neale M.A. Who's really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science 49 4 (2003) 464-477
34. The Resources Agency, 2001. First draft report on the methodology to identify state conservation priorities: California Continuing Resources Investment Strategy Project. A Report by the State of California Resources Agency.
35. Van den Honert R.C. Decisional power in group decision making: a note on the allocation of group members' weights in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Group Decision and Negotiation 10 (2001) 275-286
36. Xu Z. On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgment matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 12 (2000) 683-687
37. Yaniv I. Receiving other people's advice: influence and benefit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 93 1 (2004) 1-13
38. Zahir S. Clusters in a group: decision making in the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 112 (1999) 620-634