Concept proposal for research project

1. Brief Description

Over human history there has been a continuous increase in the variety of ways and intensity by which humankind has modified the physical, chemical and biological nature of our immediate environment. There are today hardly any natural ecosystems that have not been changed by the transformation of land, water diversions, pollution, or other, direct or indirect, human activities.

As a consequence, an essential prerequisite to treat the current and global environmental crisis requires an interdisciplinary approach from a broad range of professions. But there are many difficulties surrounding the initiation and maintenance of a collaboration across professions, interest groups and stakeholders, etc. One aspect of the dilemma concerns different valuation systems. For instance, relatively few people try to cause intentional harm in their efforts to exploit natural resources or when restoring nature. But we nevertheless still act according to value laden beliefs, such as, sustainability is ‘good’. Thus, the values and processes involved in our everyday life has a significant impact on the implementation of environmental policies or projects. This highlights the general need for increasing the understanding of how values influence a project, as well as developing a procedure or strategy that take these differences into account.

1.1Research possibilities

Depending on the interpretation, the concept of ‘sustainability’ suggests that we need to maintain the earths ecosystems so that they yield the greatest benefits to present and future generations. But the implementation of environmental policies promoting e.g. sustainability is today a complex procedure involving, in most cases, a range of stakeholders from different fields. Applying environmental policies, and its subsequent management, constitutes a significant problem to overcome. This, especially, since it requires the incorporation of expertise from a broad range of disciplines, such as ecology, social sciences, economics and psychology. Consequently, a practical situation that many initiatives find themselves, once at the implementation stage (project level), is one in which a balance needs to be struck between what the biologist / environmentalist often perceive as the optimal result and the actual result generated in regards to society. Therefore, when considering the impact that this has on our use and management of environmental resources and processes, it becomes apparent that projects aimed at improving environmental conditions (e.g. increasing biodiversity, habitat restoration) often fail to achieve their stated objectives.

Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) provide a range of tools by which any enterprise can decide to analyse and operate various aspects of their project(s). The approach of Multi Criteria Analysis is a broad set of methods, including different decision aids or evaluation tools. MCA is generally used for decision problems with various objectives. As these objectives are often pursued with one or more criteria, various criteria exist. Its methods differ from conventional methods as they can take into account a set of objectives and criteria that can be conflictual and multidimensional. The information contained in the criteria, and the effects of the decision, can be uncertain as well as qualitative. Characteristic besides multiple criteria is the variety of scales to measure the criteria. Some criteria can be transformed into quantitative indicators, others use qualitative parameters.

Overall, MCA is able to tackle environmental, economic and social issues, multiple use, trade-offs, conflicting criteria, qualitative information and uncertainty, etc. They are therefore, for instance, of fundamental importance for the concept of sustainable development. But, in the case of a multicriteria problem, the concept of one optimal solution does not work, as there is generally no solution that dominates in regards to all the criteria. Consequently, solving a multicriteria problem does not mean searching for one single optimum, but helping the decision maker in bringing more transparency and advancing towards a solution.

Nevertheless, the incentive and moral reasoning, on all levels of society, is something often handled as an proverbial afterthought. It would therefore be of interest to formulate and analyse prevalent views and values of stakeholders within an environmental project. For instance, an interesting study by Böhm[1] (2003) highlights the problems surrounding the public’s perception of environmental degradation and the surprising lack of people feeling responsible. It would consequently be interesting to examine the potential influence of a “value based assessment procedure” or the articulation of preferences prior to the implementation of new policies using MCA. To be somewhat more specific, it would be of interest to generate an experimental setting in which a suitable procedure aimed at detecting value differences between stakeholders was possible. The purpose of this analysis would ultimately be to suggest strategies on how to approach problems that different objectives or beliefs in a project might generate. In general, the benefits of being able to tackle such issues prior to them becoming an obstacle are potentially great. Taken as a whole, a project of this nature would aim at facilitating aspects of psychologically managing a project and how it can be incorporated with ethical theory and the manner in which we proceed to incorporate ethics into social policy.

1.2Overview

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should influence our choice of a suitable strategy. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. Accordingly, it would be interesting to explore the possibility of establishing a system of generic indicators that allow us to analyse a particular situation and handle prevalent value systems prior to the launching of a project / initiative. However, it should not only have to be restricted to a stage before implementation, but should also be applicable to an ongoing project.

The asymmetry of information between those who are in a management / decision making position and those ‘groups’ who would have to accept any decision presents a central problem for maximising / optimising the output of any restoration effort or environmental project. But what can be done to reduce this asymmetry of opinions / objectives? For example, providers of insurance employ procedures to determine risk factors, etc. Can something similar be applied / accomplished within the context of environmental ethics and the impact it would have on management and the interaction with, and between, stakeholders?

Would it be possible to circumvent or influence a value system prevalent in one particular group (e.g. farmers) to optimise the impact and results generated by a environmental project or when trying to implement policies? In terms of a restoration project, objectives are often influenced by common practices, beliefs and values. Would it be possible to analyse the setting prior to the launching of a project aimed at restoration? Would this enable alternative approaches and improved results?

However, this raises the question concerning which principles generate the best overall outcome? Is it possible to manipulate acceptance rates among different groups, economies, environmental factors, future generations? As an example, many businesses / companies today find it difficult to make a move towards sustainable production methods. They, to a large extent, still focus on the improvement of environmental quality of the production process rather than trying to improve the environmental conditions in the supply chain. Both qualitative and volume aspects of the management of natural capital, in the broad context of social, economic and ecological concerns need to be take into account. Therefore, I believe the ecological policy arena should expand to include not only economic interests but also to engage all relevant social and economic cross-sectoral interests. Among other things, this requires new forms and forums to ensure the participation of the broadest possible array of stakeholders for the design of solutions challenging to all interests involved.

2. Method and Justification

2.1 Project strategy

To understand the implications of introducing a “value based assessment procedure” or “progressive articulation of preferences”(output and objectivesto be defined) into a specific project, it is important to have an idea of the impact / influence it may have. Accordingly establishing a method that would be able to gradually verify the effect would be beneficial for all organisation / institutions involved.

From the perspective of this project, the first phase will involve the gathering of information relating to the management of value-based issues and stakeholders within a range of completed project(s). This would provide an up-to-date assessment of applied strategies, possible approaches and its actual impact on the stated objectives and outcome. The second phase of the project would involve the analysis of data, and based on this the development of a procedure / strategy capable of handling any identified problems. The final stage would involve the implementation and testing of the developed procedure / strategy and its hopefully positive influence on the outcome.

2.2 Expected end-of-project situation

At project completion the following achievements will then have been accomplished:

A comprehensive assessment of the methods applied in previous projects (to be decided) with an overview reporting the effects these have had on the final outcome.

The identification of potential generic indicators that can be used in the creation / development of a value-based assessment procedure or a progressive articulation of preferences (to be decided).

The completion of a procedure / strategy / ‘how to handbook’ that can respond to the diversified needs of any decision maker using MCA. However, given the current breadth of the proposed plan a research project of this nature would realistically have to be narrowed. Nonetheless, the aim is to develop a procedure that can be applicable to any management or project implementation scenario and not only projects with an environmental focus.

2.3 Target beneficiaries

In terms of the research community, it would improve the understanding of the influence and effect ethical values and beliefs has on a project, as well as providing a springboard for further development within a field greatly in need of expansion.

The ultimate beneficiaries of this initiative would however be any decision maker, this in terms of application and usage of any procedure developed through this project.

2.4 Reasons for assistance from UNDP

Herewith the main reasons for restoring to UNDP assistance for the definition, preparation, implementation and management of the present project proposal:

  • Availability of data and international sources related to the field of interest;
  • Management and implementation skills in handling regional initiatives;
  • Proven record of international partnerships promotion and establishment;
  • Extensive experience within the field of interest;
  • Fund raising activities with international institutions and donors.

2.5 Co-ordination arrangements

The overall coordination of the project is still to be determined and dependant on the involvement, arrangement and support of the concerned organisations / institutions.

3. Objectives, Outputs and Timeline

3.1 Development Objective

The development objective of this project is to indirectly enhance the quality of managing stakeholder interests and, within the frame of Multi Criteria Analysis, the incorporation of methods capable of detecting the influence value-systems has on this process. This could be done through the provision of a viable and cost-effective procedure / strategy by which any decision maker(s) can analyse the different ‘interests’ within a project and how to manage them.

3.2 Immediate objectives

Objective 1:Assessment of previous environmental project(s) and the manner in which they were managed in accordance to stated objectives. The determination of needs, and the analysis of implemented strategies would provide a platform from which to gain an understanding of their influence. In addition, it could provide data for the development of alternative approaches.

Output 1.1: (Report / Publication.) Depending on the interests of the involved organisations the manner in which the results are to be published is still to be discussed. Nonetheless, it would perhaps beneficial to aim for a joint publication through a suitable channel.

Objective 2:Development and initial testing of applicable methods / procedures / strategies for use within MCA. Potentially focusing on a ‘value based assessment procedure’

Output 2.1: (Report / Publication.) This would also depend on the shape and aim the project will pursue. It would however be possible to also seek a publication at this stage. The actual development and initial testing would constitute the body of a project proposal aimed at implementing the preceding results / conclusions.

Objective 3:Establishment /Implementation of the alternative scheme(s) followed by the evaluation of its influence on a project stated objective(s).

Output 3.1: (Thesis / Final Report / Publication / ‘How to Handbook’.) Assessment, presentation and evaluation of the final results.

3.3 Timeline

The ‘end product’ and definite timeline would be subject to interests and available options. Overall, in relation to Phd studies, the project will realistically take between 2-3 years in total. However, in terms of output this would be in line with the objectives and availability of suitable data.

Tentatively it might be possible to aim at having the first preliminary output completed by the end of the 2006. This would be subject to the scale, final aim and any issues / constraints that might arise. The second and final phase of the project can only be loosely timed as for now. Developing a method / procedure capable of dealing with the key factors identified during the initial analysis would most likely be possible during the first half of 2007. The final stage of the project could hopefully be completed by the beginning or middle of 2008.

3.3. Tentative questions / Discussion points

To approach the topic of interest a number of barriers have to be addressed, namely:

  • Availability of information / data
  • Risks and constraints
  • Financial resources / funding
  • Regulations and standards
  • Strategic Issues

These should be potentially highlighted and addressed through the proposed surveys.

However, the results from an investigation into the prevalent values and behavioural aspects, and the consequences that these have on our current utilisation of environmental resources, could be practically valuable for future projects. Here are some of the questions that would be interesting to consider / discuss

  • What tools have been employed to deal with stakeholders?
  • Have ethical assumptions effected the outcome of the project(s) relation to the stated objectives?

Have the ethical beliefs represented by e.g. various individuals / groups / stakeholders had an impact. In what way have their perception of, for instance, nature influenced their behaviour towards the project? Has this effected the procedures or final outcome? How have different beliefs been incorporated into the stated objectives?

  • Assess and determine to what extent it would be possible to influence and overcome individual and social barriers for a stated objective formulated by a environmental project.

Would the success of a project require a common objective? Do you need a common objective or a compromise solution that accommodates several objectives? Biologists often perceive the objective as the maximisation of the “positive” environmental impact of a project. This could be in terms of biodiversity, sustainability, reducing environmental degradation, etc. However, objectives of this kind are open to interpretation and based on theories and ethical beliefs. For instance, if a project adheres to biocentric principles, maximising biodiversity would most likely constitute an objective. But would this truly be necessary?

Basically any environmental project should be interested in maximising their results. But given the complexity of any decision making procedure, finding a dominant solution is very uncommon. Nonetheless, any project with a defined objective should more forcefully limit the trade-offs they may have to carry out. For instance, during the process of restoration there often has to be adjustments (trade-offs in regards to the stated objective) to fit all interest groups. This often (but not always) have a negative influence on the final results. But if the correct strategy is implemented at the right time these differences / problems could be resolved more effectively. By employing a suitable procedure to take into account social and ethical differences could probably reduce trade-offs?

  • What pragmatic tools can be employed to counter and improve relationship within an ongoing project?
  • Can a “value based assessment procedure” or a stage of “progressive articulation of preferences” be incorporated into the problem structuring phase of MCA?

1

[1] Böhm, G. (2003) Emotional reactions to environmental risks: Consequentialist versus ethical evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 199-212