Tools for Stakeholder Assessment and Interaction

  • Jürgen Scheffran
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Integrate Assessment Model Alternative Dispute Resolution Stakeholder Dialogue Negotiation Support Viability Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackoff, R. (1974). Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. John WileyGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubin, J.P. (1991). Viability Theory. BirkhäuserGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubin, J.-P., Saint-Pierre, P. (2004). An introduction to viability theory and management of renewable resources. In: Kropp, J., Scheffran, J. (eds). Decision Making and Risk Management in Sustainability Science. Nova Sci. Publ, New York, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bächler, G., Spillmann, K. (1996). Kriegsursache Umweltzerstörung Vol. I–III. Rüegger, Chur, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  6. Billari, F., Fent, T., Fürnkranz-Prskawetz, A., Scheffran, J. (2006). Agent Based Computational Modelling in Demography, Economic and Environmental Sciences. Springer-PhysicaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruckner, T., Petschel-Held, G., Toth, F.L., Füssel, H.-M., Leimbach, M., Schellnhuber, H.-J. (1999). Climate Change Decision-Support and the Tolerable Windows Approach. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 4, 217–234 See also the contributions by the same authors in the special issue of Climatic Change 56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carius, A., Lietzmann, K.M. (1999). Environmental Change and Security. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. Carraro, C., Filar, J. (1995). Control and game-theoretic models of the environment. Birkhäuser, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Cebon, P., Dahinden, U., Davies, H.C., Imboden, D.M., Jaeger, C.C. (1998). Views from the Alps. Towards Regional Assessments of Climate Change. MIT-Press, Cambridge, MassachusetsGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Cognitive and social action. UCL Press limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Diehl, P.F., Gleditsch, N.P. (2001). Environmental Conflict. Westview Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dockner, E., Jorgensen, S., Van Long, N., Sorger, G. (2000). Differential games in economics and management science. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Downing, T.E., Moss, S., Pahl-Wostl, C. (2001). Understanding Climate policy Using participatory Agent-based Social Simulation. In: Moss, S., Davidsson, P. (eds). Multi-agent-based Simulation: Second international Workshop, MABS 2000. Revised Springer 2001, Boston, MA Lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 1979: Lecture notes in Artificial IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehtamo, H., Verkama, M., Hämälainen, R.P. (1999). How to select fair improving directions in a negotiation model over continuous issues. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, 29(1), 26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehtamo, H., Hämäläinen, R.P., Koskinen, V. (2003). An E-learning Approach for Teaching Mathematical Models of Negotiation Analysis. Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenack, K., Kropp, J. (2001). Assessment of management options in marine fisheries by qualitative modelling techniques. Marine Pollution Bulletin 43(7–12), 215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenack, K., Scheffran, J., Kropp, J. (2006). Viability analysis of management frameworks for fisheries. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 11, 69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elias, A.A., Cavana, R.Y., Jackson, L.A. (2000). Linking stakeholder literature and system dynamics: Opportunities for research, Proceedings of the international conference on systems thinking in management. Geelong, Australia, 174–179 Scholar
  21. Epstein, J.M. (1997). Nonlinear Dynamics, Mathematical Biology, and Social Science. Santa Fe Institute, Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Epstein, J.M., Axtell, R. (1997). Growing Artificial Societies. MIT-Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Feichtinger G., Hartl R.F. (1986). Optimale Kontrolle ökonomischer Prozesse. De Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher, R., Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Fordham, D.P., Hood, L.M., Malafant, K.W.J. (1997). Complexity in landscapes and resource planning: Packaging science for decision makers. In: Frontiers in Ecology: Building the Links. Elsevier ScienceGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Gandolfo, G. (1997). Economic Dynamics. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  28. Gaylord, R.J., D’Andria, L.J. (1998). Simulating Society-A Mathematica Toolkit for Modeling Socioeconomic Behavior. Springer/Telos, Berlin et al.Google Scholar
  29. Gilbert, N., Troitzsch, K.G. (2000). Simulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press, Buckingham, PAGoogle Scholar
  30. Grebogi, C., Yorke, J.A. (1997). The Impact of Chaos on Science and Society. University Press, UNGoogle Scholar
  31. Haken, H. (1977). Synergetics. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Hannon, B., Ruth, M. (1999). Dynamic Modeling. 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  33. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 168, 1243–1248Google Scholar
  34. Hare, M., Deadman, P. (2004). Further towards a taxonomy of agent-based simulation models in environmental management. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 64, 25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hare, M., Gilbert, N., Medugno, D., Asakawa, T., Heeb, J., Pahl-Wostl, C. (2001). The development of an internet forum for long-term participatory group learning about problems and solutions to sustainable urban water supply management. In: Hilty, L.M., Gilgen, P.W. (eds). Sustainability in the Information Society, 15th International Symposium Informatics for Environmental Protection, Part 2: Methods/Workshop Papers. Metropolis Verlag, Marburg, 743–750Google Scholar
  36. Hasselmann, K., Hasselmann, S. (1998). Multi-actor opimization of greenhouse gas emission paths using coupled integral climate response and economic models. In: Schellnhuber, H.J., Wenzel, V. (eds). Earth System Analysis — Integrating Science for Sustainability. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Heinelt, H. et al. (2002). Participatory Governance in Mult-Level Context. Leske and Budrich, OpladenGoogle Scholar
  38. Helbing, D. (1995). Quantitative Sociodynamics — Stochastic Methods and Models of Social Interaction Processes. Kluwer. Boston/London/DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Hofbauer, J., Sigmund, K. (1995). Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Holzinger, K. (1997). Evaluating Environmental Mediation. Results of a Participant Survey. Schriften zu Mediationsverfahren im Umweltschutz Nr. 18. Discussion Paper FS II 97-304. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für SozialforschungGoogle Scholar
  41. Homer-Dixon, T.F. (1991). On the Threshold — Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict. International Security 16(2), 76–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hood, L. (2003). Tools for an Uncertain World: Agent Based Modelling, Greenhouse Beyond Kyoto-Conference Scholar
  43. Intriligator, M.D. (1971). Mathematical Optimization and Economic Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  44. Jaeger, C.C., Renn, O., Rosa, E.A., Webler, T. (2001). Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Jelassi, M.T., Kersten, G.E., Zionts, S. (1990). An Introduction to Group Decision and Negotiation Support. In: Bana e Costa, C. A. (ed). Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 537–568Google Scholar
  46. Kersten, G.E., Noronha, J. (1998). Rational Agents, Contract Curves, and Inefficient Compromises. IEEE Transactionas on Systens, Man, and Cybernetics, part A: Systems and Humans 28, 326–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kettunen, E. (1999). Interactive Methods for Group Decision and Negotiation Support, Licentiate’s Thesis. Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  48. Köszegi, S., Kersten, G. (2003). On-line/Off-line: Joint Negotiation Teaching in Montreal and Vienna. Group Decision and Negotiation 12, 337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kropp, J., Scheffran, J. (2006). Advanced Methods for Decision Making and Risk Management in Sustainability Science. Nova Science, New York, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  50. Kropp, J., Zickfeld, K., Eisenack, K. (2002). Assessment and management of critical events: The breakdown of marine fisheries and the north atlantic thermohaline circulation. In: Bunde, A., Kropp, J., Schellnhuber, H.J. (eds). The Science of Disasters: Climate Disruptions, Heart Attacks, and Market Crashes. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 192–216Google Scholar
  51. Kuipers, B. (1994). Qualitative Reasoning: Modelling and Simulation with Incomplete Knowledge. MIT-Press. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Mitchell, R., Agle, B., Wood, D. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moss, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., Downing, T. (2001). Agent based integrated assessment modelling: the example of climate change. Integrated Assessment 2, 17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mumpower, J.L. (1991). The Judgment Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems. Management Science 37, 1304–1324Google Scholar
  55. Nash, J.F. (1950). The Bargaining Problem. Econometrica 18, 155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nordhaus, W. (1994). Managing the Global Commons. The Economics of Climate Change. MIT-Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Riordan, T., Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2002). Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities. Protecting beyond the protected. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  59. Owen, G. (1982). Game Theory. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  60. Pahl-Wostl, C. (1995). The Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems: Chaos and Order. Entwined Wiley, Chichester, 288Google Scholar
  61. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2001). A New Understanding of Human Agency. Working paper, EAWAG Scholar
  62. Peterson, S., (2002). Entscheidungstheoretische Analyse und Strukturierung von Mediationsverfahren zur Lösung von Umweltkonflikten. Dissertation, Agrarund Ernährungswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Internet Verlag www.dissertation.deGoogle Scholar
  63. Petschel-Held, G., Schellnhuber, H.-J., Bruckner, T., Toth, F.L., Hasselmann, K. (1999). The Tolerable Windows Approach: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations. Climatic Change 41, 303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Priscoli, J.D. (1989). Public Involvement, Conflict Management: Means to EQ and Social Objectives. ASCE Jour. Water Res. Planning and Management 115(1), 31–42Google Scholar
  65. Pruitt, D.G., Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Mc Graw HillGoogle Scholar
  66. Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1), 65–78Google Scholar
  67. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. University Press Cambridge, Belknap/Harvard, MAGoogle Scholar
  68. Rotmans, J., Dowlatabadi, H. (1998). Integrated assessment of climate change: evaluation of methods and strategies. In: Rayner, S., Malone, L. (eds). Human Choice and Climate Change. Battelle Press, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  69. Scheffran, J. (2000). The Dynamic Interaction Between Economy and Ecology. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (53), 371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scheffran, J. (2001). Stability and control of value-cost dynamic games. Central European Journal of Operations Research 9(7), 197–225Google Scholar
  71. Scheffran, J., Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2003). Participatory Governance in Environmental Conflict Resolution. In: Deb, K., Srivastava, L. (eds). Transition Towards Sustainable Development in South Asia, New Delhi. The Energy and Resources Institute, 307–327Google Scholar
  72. Schweitzer, F. (1997). Self-Organization of Complex Structures: From Individual to Collective Dynamics Vol. II. Gordon and Breach, LondonGoogle Scholar
  73. Sebenius, J.K. (1992). Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review. Management Science 38, 18–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sprinz, D.F., Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (2004). Models, Numbers, and Cases. Methods for Studying International Relations. University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
  75. Teich, J. E., Wallenius, H., Wallenius, J., Zionts, S. (1996). Identifying Pareto-Optimal Settlements for Two-Party Resource Allocation Negotiations. European Journal of Operational Research 93, 536–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tuinstra, J. (2000). A discrete and symmetric price adjustment process on the simplex. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24(5–7), 881–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van den Belt, M. (2004). Mediated Modeling. A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building. Island Press, Washington, Covelo, London.Google Scholar
  78. van der Veen, A. (1999). Interactive decision-making: a review Report to the FIRMA project. ICIS http// Scholar
  79. von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J.Google Scholar
  80. Weber, M., Barth, V., Hasselmann, K. (2003). A Multi-Actor Dynamic Integrated Assessment Model (MADIAM) of Induced Technological Change and Sustainable Change Economic Growth. Paper presented at EGS-AGU-EUG Joint Assembly. Nice, France, 06.–11. AprilGoogle Scholar
  81. Weidlich, W. (2000). Sociodynamics-A Systematic Approach to Mathematical Modelling in the Social Sciences. Harwood Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  82. Weidner, H. 1998). Alternative Dispute Resolution in Environmental Conflicts-Experiences in 12 Countries. Edition Sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  83. Welp, M., de la Vega-Leinert, A., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Jaeger, C.C. (2006). Science-based stakeholder dialogues: Theories and tools. Global Environmental Change 16, 170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Scheffran
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations