Multicriteria Mapping Manual. Version 1.0.

Stirling, Andy; Coburn, Josie

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2742160

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was achieved by engaging 13 expert interviewees representing different perspectives on the issues—both in policy and practice—surrounding the management of large herbivores in biodiversity conservation and agroecological food production. A perspective is considered ‘a grouping of viewpoints that may be seen on the basis of MCM analysis to display certain features in common’ (Stirling & Coburn, 2014). For example, participants categorised within the ‘farmer’ perspective generally prioritised criteria around SRES and viability, while the ‘conservation’ perspective identified more criteria related to biodiversity.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

People, nature and large herbivores in a shared landscape: A mixed‐method study of the ecological and social outcomes from agriculture and conservation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

People, nature and large herbivores in a shared landscape: A mixed‐method study of the ecological and social outcomes from agriculture and conservation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The data obtained by means of the MCM interviewing method was prepared for analysis as described in the MCM manual Version 1.2. 27 For analysis, the predefined options were grouped into clusters (Table 1) and criteria identified by the DoH officials were categorised into groups termed “issues” in MCM. Five sets of issues were identified and used to analyse the assessment of the performance of the predefined options.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Non-Communicable Diseases in the Western Cape, South Africa

Solomons

Kruger

Pouane

2019

Journal of Public Health Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Chronic non-communicable diseases (CNCDs) are increasing with grave consequences to countries’ development. The purpose of this study was three-fold: (1) to determine challenges PURE study participants faced regarding CNCD interventions and what they required from a CNCD intervention programme, and (2) to explore courses of action Department of Health (DoH) officials thought would perform best, as well as (3) to determine what DoH officials perceive to be obstacles in addressing the CNCD epidemic.Design and methods: A subsample of 300 participants from the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological study’s Western Cape urban cohort and six key officers from the DoH were recruited to participate in this cross-sectional study. Questionnaires were used in face-to-face interviews with the PURE study participants and DoH officials, together with the multi-criteria mapper (MCM) interviewing method with the latter.Results: Most PURE participants were overweight/obese, but not keen to participate in weight loss interventions. They sought education on foods associated with weight gain, shopping lists, cooking lessons and recipes from CNCD intervention programmes. Department of Health officials regarded the integration of health services, community participation, amongst others as the most favourable options to address the CNCD epidemic.Conclusions: The integration of health services, community participation, food taxation and improving inter-sectoral partnerships were viewed as the most feasible options to address the CNCD epidemic according to the DoH officials. At community level, the needs for education and practical hints were expressed. Current CNCD interventions should be adapted to include the context-based needs of communities.Significance for public healthChronic non-communicable disease (CNCD) epidemic should be addressed as a matter of urgency. Many organisations in the private and public sectors have responded by developing and implementing CNCD intervention programmes. Despite this, the number of persons being diagnosed with a CNCD continues to rise annually. This raises the question why existing CNCD nutrition-related messages currently being disseminated to address the CNCD epidemic are not achieving the desired effect. It could be that current health messages are not reaching the target groups; the health messages are being misunderstood, or the health messages are not addressing the target populations’ needs. Gaps in addressing the CNCD epidemic can be identified when needs of a target population are identified. These needs should be compared with what Department of Health officials consider to be the best nutrition-related strategies to address the epidemic. This could be the first step in attempting to identify where current strategies can be adjusted to meet the target population’s needs.

show abstract

Taste and Power: The Flavouring Industry and Flavour Additive Regulation

Zwanenberg

Millstone

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concepts and methods used by regulatory agencies worldwide to assess the safety of flavouring additives were designed by and for the flavouring industry. They embody, and embed in routine regulatory practice, the industry's commercial interests in minimising the costs of regulatory oversight and the risks that the market for its products might be restricted. First sketched out by US flavouring company scientists in the early 1960s, the approach required almost no experimental data, and was highly permissive, relative to both our knowledge (and lack of it) about chemical toxicity, and to the ways other kinds of food additives are regulated. Our distinctive 'realist constructivist' analysis illustrates how the industry's approach was also antiscientific, unscientific because it served to discourage scientific investigation of important aspects of the phenomena it purported to evaluate, and because it relied on hypotheses that lacked any evidential basis. The approach was first used to assess flavourings in the USA, where the industry was allowed to design and run its own regulatory regime. In all other regulatory jurisdictions, the industry's approach was rejected; expert advisors argued that it was incompatible with mandates to protect consumer health. Yet, the approach eventually prevailed everywhere. It did so in large part because of the collective refusal of the flavouring industry over three decades to provide the experimental data that had been requested by the regulatory authorities. This has been a form of regulatory capture, which was triggered by a remarkably effective tactic of non-cooperation with demands for data.

show abstract

Multicriteria Mapping Manual. Version 1.0.

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

People, nature and large herbivores in a shared landscape: A mixed‐method study of the ecological and social outcomes from agriculture and conservation

People, nature and large herbivores in a shared landscape: A mixed‐method study of the ecological and social outcomes from agriculture and conservation

Addressing Non-Communicable Diseases in the Western Cape, South Africa

Taste and Power: The Flavouring Industry and Flavour Additive Regulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About