Multicriteria approval and SMAA-O in natural resources decision analysis with both ordinal and cardinal criteria

Multicriteria approval (MA) and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis with ordinal criteria (SMAA-O) methods have been specially developed for making use of low-quality information in multicriteria decision support. In this study, MA and SMAA-O are applied to forestry decision support with both ordinal and cardinal criteria. On grounds of experiences gained, conclusions are given on the practical applicability of the methods. MA favoured an alternative that obtained mediocre rankings in SMAA-O analysis. On the other hand, the probability of this alternative having the worst ranks was negligible. Therefore, MA suits for managing situations with severely conflicting criteria or preferences. An additional benefit of MA is that it is intuitively easy to understand. SMAA-O, in turn, favoured several distinctive alternatives each promoting some but usually not the same criterion or a group of criteria. SMAA-O provides many-sided analyses on the choice problem, but it is more complicated and harder to understand. Its characteristics are best utilized in analyses involving uncertainty and both cardinal and ordinal data. In cases of very-low-quality information involved, as is typical in participatory processes, for instance, MA may be a good approach. In the case planning problem, different forest plan alternatives proved to be ‘the best ones’ according to MA and SMAA-O analyses, and the final choice was neither of them. However, after comprehensive interpretation of the results given by both methods the final choice was clear. Both methods gave valuable results and insights in the case problem, and they were complementary to each other. A conclusion is that applying them both together in the case planning process would have been recommendable. MA can serve as a tool to approach the problem in the first stage and to learn the very nature of the decision problem. After MA analyses, a sound basis is gained in the sense of both behavioural and technical aspects for more detailed and in-depth analyses by SMAA-O. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Brian Kent,et al.  Models for conflict resolution in ecosystem management , 1999 .

[2]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Incorporating risk attitude into comparison of reforestation alternatives , 1994 .

[3]  J. Kacprzyk,et al.  Probabilistic, fuzzy and rough concepts in social choice , 1996 .

[4]  Y. Shepetukha,et al.  Comparative analysis of multiattribute techniques based on cardinal and ordinal inputs , 2001 .

[5]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  R. Soland,et al.  Multiple‐attribute decision making with partial information: The comparative hypervolume criterion , 1978 .

[7]  H. Nurmi.  Comparing Voting Systems , 1987 .

[8]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Internet and teledemocracy in participatory planning of natural resources management , 2003 .

[9]  Risto Lahdelma,et al.  Pseudo-criteria versus linear utility function in stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Ki Hang Kim,et al.  Introduction to mathematical consensus theory , 1980 .

[11]  Risto Lahdelma,et al.  SMAA - Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  Annika Kangas,et al.  MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state‐owned lands in Finland: applications and experiences , 2001 .

[13]  C. B. E. Costa.  A multicriteria decision aid methodology to deal with conflicting situations on the weights , 1986 .

[14]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Rank-based modelling of preferences in multi-criteria decision making , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  B. Tolwinski,et al.  An application of social choice theory to U.S.D.A. forest service decision making , 1996 .

[16]  D. Schmoldt,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making , 2001, Managing Forest Ecosystems.

[17]  John Buchanan,et al.  Capturing decision maker preference: Experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques , 1997 .

[18]  Risto Lahdelma,et al.  SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making , 2001, Oper. Res..

[19]  J. W. Hauge,et al.  Multicriteria approval: application of approval voting concepts to MCDM problems , 1998 .

[20]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[21]  Philippe Vincke,et al.  Multicriteria Decision-Aid , 1992 .

[22]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Support Methods in Forest Management , 2002 .

[23]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Applying voting theory in natural resource management: a case of multiple-criteria group decision support. , 2002, Journal of environmental management.

[24]  Piet Rietveld,et al.  Ordinal data in multicriteria decision making, a stochastic dominance approach to siting nuclear power plants , 1992 .

[25]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  A Method for Integrating Risk and Attitude Toward Risk into Forest Planning , 1996, Forest Science.

[26]  O. Larichev.  Cognitive validity in design of decision‐aiding techniques , 1992 .

[27]  Mustafa R. Yilmaz,et al.  Can we improve upon approval voting , 1999 .

[28]  B. Hobbs,et al.  An evaluation of multi-criteria methods in integrated assessment of climate policy , 2001 .