Participatory multicriteria decision analysis with Web-HIPRE: a case of lake regulation policy

Environmental decision making typically concerns several stakeholders with conflicting views. Multicriteria decision analysis provides transparent ways to elicit and communicate individual preferences. When the stakeholders clearly understand each other’s views, a consensus can be reached more easily. Computer software provides a substantial enhancement to support participatory decision making processes, for example, in the preference elicitation and in the analysis of the results. In this paper, we describe the first web-based multicriteria decision support software called Web-HIPRE, and the use of it in participatory environmental modelling. The world wide web provides new possibilities to support the process, for example, by allowing distributed decision support. The stakeholders can be located in different geographical areas, especially in environmental problems. We illustrate the

[1]  Harri Ehtamo,et al.  Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management , 2001 .

[2]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Future research in group support systems: needs, some questions and possible directions , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  R. Gregory,et al.  Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values , 1994 .

[4]  R. Ramanathan,et al.  Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages , 1994 .

[5]  Ahti Salo,et al.  Interactive decision aiding for group decision support , 1995 .

[6]  I. Turton,et al.  Web-based public participation geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making , 2000 .

[7]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Adam Smith, Behavioral Economist , 2005 .

[8]  Xuan Zhu,et al.  JavaAHP: a web-based decision analysis tool for natural resource and environmental management , 2001, Environ. Model. Softw..

[9]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Identifying and Structuring Values to Guide Integrated Resource Planning at BC Gas , 1999, Oper. Res..

[10]  Christer Carlsson,et al.  Past, present, and future of decision support technology , 2002, Decis. Support Syst..

[11]  James L. Corner,et al.  Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990 - 2001 , 2004, Decis. Anal..

[12]  R. Costanza,et al.  Watershed management and the Web , 1999 .

[13]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Web-HIPRE - Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis , 1999 .

[14]  Ward Edwards,et al.  How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[15]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[16]  T. Saaty.  Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1994 .

[17]  L. Phillips,et al.  Faciliated Work Groups: Theory and Practice , 1993 .

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

[19]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  There Is Hope In Attribute Weighting , 2000 .

[20]  Ilan Kapoor,et al.  Towards participatory environmental management? , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[21]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[23]  Hans Vrolijk,et al.  Behavioral and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[25]  Bruce E. Barrett,et al.  Decision quality using ranked attribute weights , 1996 .

[26]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[27]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[28]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen.  Reversing the Perspective on the Applications of Decision Analysis: (Comment on Keefer et al 2004) , 2004, Decis. Anal..

[29]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Decision analysis makes its way into environmental policy in Finland , 1992 .

[30]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Interactive Computer Support in Decision Conferencing: The Case of Nuclear Emergency Management, Proceedings of Group Decision & Negotiation 2001, F , 2001 .

[31]  M. D. Wilkinson,et al.  Management science , 1989, British Dental Journal.

[32]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Democratizing Risk Management: Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions , 1999 .

[33]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  An Experiment on the Numerical Modelling of Verbal Ratio Statements , 1997 .

[34]  R. P. Hiimiiliiinen,et al.  Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment , 1995 .

[35]  J. Dombi,et al.  A method for determining the weights of criteria: the centralized weights , 1986 .

[36]  Hemant K. Bhargava,et al.  Feature Article - The World Wide Web: Opportunities for Operations Research and Management Science , 1998, INFORMS J. Comput..

[37]  Martin Weber,et al.  Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making , 1993 .

[38]  T. C. Haas.  A web-based system for public–private sector collaborative ecosystem management , 2001 .

[39]  Richard K. Morgan.  Environmental impact assessment : a methodological perspective , 1998 .

[40]  Peter Adler,et al.  Participating the Public: Group Process, Politics, and Planning , 1997 .

[41]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process , 1997 .