A Practical Approach to Address Uncertainty in Stakeholder Deliberations

This article addresses the difficulties of incorporating uncertainty about consequence estimates as part of stakeholder deliberations involving multiple alternatives. Although every prediction of future consequences necessarily involves uncertainty, a large gap exists between common practices for addressing uncertainty in stakeholder deliberations and the procedures of prescriptive decision‐aiding models advanced by risk and decision analysts. We review the treatment of uncertainty at four main phases of the deliberative process: with experts asked to describe possible consequences of competing alternatives, with stakeholders who function both as individuals and as members of coalitions, with the stakeholder committee composed of all stakeholders, and with decisionmakers. We develop and recommend a model that uses certainty equivalents as a theoretically robust and practical approach for helping diverse stakeholders to incorporate uncertainties when evaluating multiple‐objective alternatives as part of public policy decisions.

[1]  F. Ramsey Truth and Probability , 2016 .

[2]  Christina Demski,et al.  Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Alexander L. Davis,et al.  Communicating scientific uncertainty , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  M. G. Morgan Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Detlof von Winterfeldt,et al.  Bridging the gap between science and decision making , 2013 .

[6]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Foundations for Group Decision Analysis , 2013, Decis. Anal..

[7]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Deliberative Disjunction: Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure , 2012 .

[9]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices , 2012 .

[10]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Communicating uncertainty: Fulfilling the duty to inform , 2012 .

[11]  Mike Pearson,et al.  Visualizing Uncertainty About the Future , 2022 .

[12]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment , 2011 .

[13]  Paul K J Han,et al.  Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  Ellen Peters Aging-Related Changes in Decision Making , 2011 .

[15]  D. Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[16]  Francis W. Zwiers,et al.  Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties , 2010 .

[17]  Mitchell J. Small,et al.  Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Decision Making , 2009 .

[18]  Stephen C. Hora,et al.  Expert Judgement Elicitation Methods , 2008 .

[19]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[20]  R. Keeney,et al.  Advances in Decision Analysis: Practical Value Models , 2007 .

[21]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The Construction of Preference: References , 2006 .

[22]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Index , 2006 .

[23]  M. Burgman Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management: Experts, stakeholders and elicitation , 2005 .

[24]  Joshua Klayman,et al.  Overconfidence in interval estimates. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Using decision analysis to encourage sound deliberation: water use planning in British Columbia, Canada , 2002 .

[26]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  A TAXONOMY AND TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY FOR ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY , 2002 .

[27]  E. Shevliakova,et al.  Elicitation of Expert Judgments of Climate Change Impacts on Forest Ecosystems , 2001 .

[28]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Book Reviews : Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improv ing Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998, 136 pages, $26.00 , 1998 .

[29]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis , 1997 .

[30]  D. Budescu,et al.  Processing Linguistic Probabilities: General Principles and Empirical Evidence , 1995 .

[31]  R. Gregory,et al.  Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values , 1994 .

[32]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[33]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking , 1992 .

[34]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems , 1991 .

[35]  Max Henrion,et al.  Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis , 1990 .

[36]  M. Bazerman Judgment in Managerial Decision Making , 1990 .

[37]  J P Kassirer,et al.  Dealing with uncertainty, risks, and tradeoffs in clinical decisions. A cognitive science approach. , 1988, Annals of internal medicine.

[38]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[39]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources , 1986 .

[40]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[41]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[42]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Independence in Utility Theory with Whole Product Sets , 1965 .

[43]  John C. Harsanyi,et al.  Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility , 1955, Journal of Political Economy.

[44]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd rev. ed. , 1947 .