Thomas Peter

Decision strategies aim at enabling reasonable decisions in cases of uncertain policy decision problems which do not meet the conditions for applying standard decision theory. This paper focuses on decision strategies that account for uncertainties by deciding whether a proposed list of policy options should be accepted or revised (scope strategies) and whether to decide now or later (timing strategies). They can be used in participatory approaches to structure the decision process. As a basis, we propose to classify the broad range of uncertainties affecting policy decision problems along two dimensions, source of uncertainty (incomplete information, inherent indeterminacy and unreliable information) and location of uncertainty (information about policy options, outcomes and values). Decision strategies encompass multiple and vague criteria to be deliberated in application. As an example, we discuss which decision strategies may account for the uncertainties related to nutritive technologies that aim at reducing methane (CH4) emissions from ruminants as a means of mitigating climate change, limiting our discussion to published scientific information. These considerations not only speak in favour of revising rather than accepting the discussed list of options, but also in favour of active postponement or semi- closure of decision-making rather than closure or passive postponement.

Planners increasingly rely on collaborative planning models that engage stakeholders to develop plans through consensus-based nego-tiations. While support for using collabora-tive planning models is growing, evaluation of their effectiveness is in its infancy. This paper reports on a case study evaluation, using a multiple criteria evaluation method, of an inno-vative collaborative planning process to pre-pare a strategic land use plan for a region in British Columbia, Canada. The study reveals that the collaborative planning process gen-erated important benefits, including improved relationships and understanding, even though it did not result in consensus agreement on a plan. The outcome also shows that the plan did not result in consensus because some stakeholders were not sufficiently engaged in the process. In addition, an unrealistic timeline was imposed that led to a final offer selection process whose result was ultimately rejected by the government.