Tackling communication and analytical problems in environmental planning: Expert assessment of key definitions and their relationships.

Inadequate definition of key terms and their relationships generates significant communication and analytical problems in environmental planning. In this work, we evaluate an ontological framework for environmental planning designed to combat these problems. After outlining the framework and issues addressed, we describe its evaluation by a group of experts representing a range of expertise and institutions. Experts rated their level of agreement with 12 propositions concerning the definitions and models underpinning the framework. These propositions, in turn, were used to assess three assumptions regarding the expected effectiveness of the framework and its contribution to addressing the abovementioned planning problems. In addition to point-based best estimates of their agreement with propositions, expert ratings were also captured on a continuous interval-valued scale. The use of intervals addresses the challenge of measuring and modelling uncertainty associated with complex assessments such as those provided by experts. Combined with written anonymous expert comments, these data provide multiple perspectives on the level of support for the approach. We conclude that the framework can complement existing planning approaches and strengthen key definitions and related models, thus helping avoid communication and analytical problems in environmental planning. Finally, experts highlighted areas that require further development, and we provide recommendations for improving the framework.

Wellbeing, values, and planning in environmental management.

Concepts of 'human values' and 'wellbeing' are central in environmental planning, especially during the group deliberations that underpin expert and participatory processes. However, there are long-standing, unresolved controversies concerning both concepts with many debates being highly theoretical. Therefore, we suggest it is more productive to develop definitions and models that are task-specific (mid-level theory). To this end, we use purpose-built value sets and models to explain the relationships among values and wellbeing, and to demarcate values, desires, and personality. The derived concepts are designed for group deliberations and could readily be combined with existing decision support tools, such as structured decision making. Outputs from the work also inform current debates within the environmental domain including, for example, those surrounding the intrinsic value of nature, and ideas concerning plural values versus a single overarching value (monism). We also define 'wellbeing' as an evaluative statement that supports assessments of trade-offs and co-benefits.

Classifying human wellbeing values for planning the conservation and use of natural resources.

Understanding how values interact is fundamental to planning the conservation and use of natural resources. However, practitioners who apply value classifications use a diversity of approaches. Does this matter? In answering this question, we propose that well-constructed classifications contribute to planning by: clarifying definitions and underlying concepts; providing a basis for assessing synergies and trade-offs; explaining some ethical constraints, including aspects of governance and power; and providing a framework for cross-cultural analysis. To test these propositions we develop complementary value classifications for end state values and principles together with supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria. The proposed classifications are then compared with alternatives including those based on 'needs', 'capabilities', and total economic value. We find that the alternatives fail against key criteria and this hampers their capacity to fulfil the four roles proposed above. Therefore, we conclude that although value classifications are important and may vary depending on purpose, they need to be well-constructed - that is, supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria should be explicit.