PUBLICATIONS

MCM Recommended Readings
How can I quickly get my head around what MCM is and how it fits in and differs from other approaches?

Summary of the Basic Approach: Ross, A., & Stirling, A. (2004e). Deliberative Mapping Briefing 5: Using the Multi-Criteria Mapping (MCM) technique. Brighton: University of Sussex.

A summary of the first ever MCM project: Stirling, A., Mayer, S., Vines, G. (1999). A summary of the first multicriteria mapping project, looking at options for sustainable food production, Rethinking Risk Project, University of Sussex.

An overview of one application of the method: Stirling, A., Lobstein, T., & Millstone, E. (2007). Methodology for obtaining stakeholder assessments of obesity policy options in the PorGrow project. Obesity Reviews, 8, 17–27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00355.x

Summaries of Using MCM with Deliberative Panels:

Ross, A., & Stirling, A. (2004a). Deliberative Mapping Briefing 1: Opportunities and challenges for involving citizens. Brighton: University of Sussex.

Ross, A., & Stirling, A. (2004b). Deliberative Mapping Briefing 2: The Deliberative Mapping approach. Brighton: University of Sussex.

Ross, A., & Stirling, A. (2004c). Deliberative Mapping Briefing 3: Deliberative Mapping in practice: the “kidney gap.” Brighton: University of Sussex.

Ross, A., & Stirling, A. (2004d). Deliberative Mapping Briefing 4: Citizens’ panels in Deliberative Mapping : a user guide. Brighton: University of Sussex.

Where has MCM been used well in practice?

On development towards lower-carbon Indian agriculture: Harriss-White, B., Gathorne-Hardy, A., Rodrigo, G., 2019. Towards Lower-Carbon Indian Agricultural Development: An Experiment in Multi-criteria Mapping. Rev. Dev. Chang. 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972266119845952

On strategies to reduce micronutrient deficiencies among children and women of reproductive age in South East Asia: Greffeuille, V., Kameli, Y., Chamnan, C., Chea, M., Daream, S., Winichagoon, P., Butryee, C., Le, B.M., Lua, T.T., Muslimatum, S., Roshita, A., Kounnavong, S., Wieringa, F.T., Berger, J., 2018. Multi-criteria Mapping of Stakeholders’ Viewpoints in Five Southeast Asian Countries on Strategies to Reduce Micronutrient Deficiencies Among Children and Women of Reproductive Age: Findings from the SMILING Project. Matern. Child Health J. 0, 0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2636-5

On sustainability of solar photovoltaic and urban mobility experiments in India and Thailand: Raven, R., Ghosh, B., Wieczorek, A., Stirling, A., Ghosh, D., Jolly, S., Karjangtimapron, E., Prabudhanitisarn, S., Roy, J., Sangawongse, S., Sengers, F., 2017. Unpacking sustainabilities in diverse transition contexts: solar photovoltaic and urban mobility experiments in India and Thailand. Sustain. Sci. 12, 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0438-0

On appraising foresight scenarios for the long term sustainable development of a small island: Royuela, J.B., Eames, M., Buckingham, S., 2016. ‘Participative foresight scenario mapping’: adapting an MCM method to appraise foresight scenarios for the long term sustainable development of a small island. Int. J. Multicriteria Decis. Mak. 6, 118–137.

On research options to improve nutritional status in sub-Saharan Africa: Holdsworth, M., Kruger, A., Nago, E., Lachat, C., Mamiro, P., Smit, K., Garimoi-Orach, C., Kameli, Y., Roberfroid, D., Kolsteren, P., 2015. African stakeholders’ views of research options to improve nutritional status in sub-Saharan Africa. Health Policy Plan. 30, 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czu087

Lubogo, D., Orach, C.G., 2016. Stakeholder perceptions of research options to improve nutritional status in Uganda. BMC Nutr. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795-016-0067-5

On communal growing activities in the UK: White, R. & Stirling, A. (2013). Sustaining trajectories towards Sustainability: Dynamics and diversity in UK communal growing activities, Global Environment Change, 23(5), 838–846

White, R & Stirling, A. (2014). Resilience in Sustainable Lifestyles Research Project Report, Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex, December 2014.

On climate mitigation or geoengineering options: Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., & Vaughan, N. E. (2014). Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change : Citizens and specialists “ open up ” appraisal of geoengineering. Public Understanding of Science, September, 1–18. doi:10.1177/0963662514548628

Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. E., & Lenton, T. M. (2013). “Opening up” geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 926–937. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011

On nanotechnology applications in Denmark: Hansen, S. F. (2010). Multicriteria mapping of stakeholder preferences in regulating nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(6), 1959–1970. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0006-3

On agricultural strategies in Kenya: Thompson, J. (2009). Environmental Change & Maize Innovation in Kenya: Exploring pathways in and out of maize, Brighton: STEPS Centre.

A summary of this project: Thompson, J. (2009). Pathways in and out of maize, From the STEPS Centre project: Environmental change and maize innovation pathways in Kenya. Brighton: STEPS Centre.

On alternative trajectories for the hydrogen economy: McDowall, W. Eames, M. (2007). Towards a sustainable hydrogen economy: A multi-criteria sustainability appraisal of competing hydrogen futures, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 32, Issue 18, December 2007, Pages 4611-4626, ISSN 0360-3199, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.06.020.

On counter-obesity policy options across Europe: E. Millstone, T. Lobstein, A. Stirling, L. Mohebati et al, Policy options for responding to obesity: cross-national report of the PorGrow project, report of the EC PorGrow Project, SPRU, University of Sussex, August 2006

A summary of this project: Lobstein, T., & Millstone, E. (2006). Policy options for responding to obesity: evaluating the options, Summary report of the EC PorGrow Project. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/15213/

On health strategies to address ‘the kidney gap’ in the UK: Davies, G., Burgess, J., Eames, M., Mayer, S., Statley, K., Stirling, A., & Williamson, S. (2003). Deliberative Mapping: Appraising options for addressing the “Kidney Gap”, Final Report to the Wellcome Trust. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/189718/

A summary of this project: Burgess, J., Davies, G., & Stirling, A. (2003). Deliberative Mapping: Appraising options for addressing the “Kidney Gap”, Executive Summary to the Wellcome Trust. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.

On GM and alternative agricultural strategies: Mayer, S., & Stirling, A. (2002). Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments–lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 57–71.

Stirling, A., & Mayer, S. (2001). A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: A multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, 529–555. doi:10.1068/c8s

What are the detailed ways in which MCM differs from comparable approaches?

For appraising social values in nature and ecosystems: Coburn, J. & Stirling, A. (2014) SPRU Report to the SPLiCE Project: A Review of 'Social Appraisal' Methodologies, Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex, September 2014.

For advancing social justice in the Global South: Gerber, J. F. (2013). Guide to Multicriteria Evaluation for Environmental Justice Organisations, EJOLT Report No.: 08, February 2013.

For appraising UK Government policy options: Dodgson, J., Spackman, M., Pearman, A., & Phillips, L. (2009). Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. doi:10.1002/mcda.399

For sustainability valuation: Stagl, S. (2007). SDRN rapid research and evidence review on emerging methods for sustainability valuation and appraisal. SDRN. Retrieved from http://www.sd-research.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Emerging%20Methods%20for%20Sustainability%20Valuation%20and%20Appraisal_0.pdf

An analysis of key related issues in international technology assessment: A. Ely, P. van Zwanenberg, A. Stirling, Opening up technology assessment: new approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation,Research Policy, 43(3) 2014, 505–518.

A summary of some of the general policy issues: A. Stirling, A view of ‘Deliberate Futures’, looking at precaution and progress in technology choice – produced by the Sustainable Development Research Network, 2005

Where are some good discussions of the theoretical grounding of MCM?

A short general overview of issues in science advice: Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature, 468, 1029–1031. doi:10.1038/4681029a

A deeper analysis of issues in participation: Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294. doi:10.1177/0162243907311265

A focus on particular issues in decision analysis: Stirling, A. (2006). Analysis, participation and power: Justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy, 23, 95–107. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010

A summary of some key related issues in technology assessment: Stirling, A. (2011). ‘Opening Up’: New models of technology assessment for development, From STEPS Working Paper 45: New Models of Technology Assessment for Development, STEPS briefing, Brighton: STEPS Centre.

 

What practical guidance is there to help with MCM?

Coburn, J., Stirling, A., & Bone, F. (2019). Multicriteria Mapping Manual: Version 3.0. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.

© 2014 MCM.