Eradicate, contain, or live with it? Collaborating with stakeholders to evaluate responses to invasive species
Eradicate, contain, or live with it? Collaborating with stakeholders to evaluate responses to invasive species
复制标题
根除、遏制还是忍受它？
DOI：
10.1007/s12571-015-0525-y
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
D. Cook
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shuang Liu;D. Cook
在保护农业生态系统免受外来物种入侵方面，公众的偏好和价值观存在显著的异质性。因此，生物安保决策类似于冲突管理，其特点不仅是技术，而且是不同利益攸关方的环境、社会和经济价值判断。因此，关键问题不在于价值观是否应该在决策过程中被考虑--无论如何，价值观是决策过程的一部分--而是如何通过正式的结构化分析来表达和整合价值观。在本文中，我们建议使用结构化决策（SDM）作为一个框架，将不同的社会价值纳入响应规划和管理，并展示其使用与三个案例研究。这一过程的第一步是在应对决定中确定利益攸关方，然后是系统地将利益攸关方的主要关切转化为管理目标的关键步骤。生物安保决策者还将与公众合作，制定替代应对办法，并通过明确权衡不同目标来确定首选方案。最后，可持续发展机制办法对所考虑和选定的应对办法提供了透明的说明和理由。
Significant heterogeneity exists in the public’s preferences and values for protecting agricultural ecosystems against invasive non-native species. Therefore, biosecurity decision-making is akin to conflict management characterised by not only technical, but also environmental, social and economic value judgements of different stakeholders. The key question then, is not whether values should be considered in the decision-making process—they are part of it anyway—but how they should be articulated and incorporated via a formal and structured analysis. In this paper, we propose to use Structured Decision Making (SDM) as a framework to incorporate diverse social values into response planning and management and demonstrate its use with three case studies. The first step of the process involves identifying the stakeholders in a response decision, followed by the critical step of systematically translating stakeholders’ major concerns into management objectives. Biosecurity decision-makers will also collaborate with the public to develop response alternatives and identify a preferred option by explicitly making trade-offs among different objectives. Ultimately, the SDM approach provides a transparent description of, and justification for, the response options considered and selected.