Assessing the Stakeholder Delphi for Facilitating Interactive Participation and Consensus Building for Sustainable Aquaculture Development

Abstract

Calls for participation in development projects are reviewed, meanings of participation discussed, and constraints to good participation considered. The stakeholder Delphi, drawing on knowledge and experience of participants, is assessed in facilitating interactive participation and consensus building. Stakeholder Delphi outcomes from a study concerning strategies to limit negative aquaculture wastewater impacts are presented. Round 1 participants (n = 24) identified 18 strategies within institutional, managerial, socioeconomic, and technological subcategories. Friedman's test indicated rank patterns (p < .001, two-tailed) in participant responses after round 2. Following round 3, Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) indicated agreement ranging from “strong–unusually strong” for technological strategies to “moderate–strong” for socioeconomic strategies; managerial and institutional strategies were rated highest. Acknowledging possible limitations reviewed here and advocating mitigating measures discussed, the stakeholder Delphi could facilitate interactive participation and consensus building among disparate, hierarchical, and possibly antagonistic groups that may require representation when assessing other aspects of sustainable aquaculture development.

Keywords:

• aquaculture development
• consensus building
• global
• participation
• stakeholder Delphi

The commitment of participants in responding to iterative rounds of this Delphi investigation is appreciated greatly. The research described here was funded by a Technology Foresight Studentship from the University of Stirling; guidance from Professor James Muir and Dr. Malcolm Beveridge was critical to carrying out the study. Preparation of this article was supported by the EC HighARCS project and INCO-DEV project MANGROVE “Mangrove ecosystems, communities and conflict: Developing knowledge-based approaches to reconcile multiple demands” (contract INCO-CT-2005-003697). This publication reflects the author's views, and the European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.