Multiple objectives under uncertainty: An illustrative application of protrade

A decision making method labeled Protrade has been developed to account for both multiple objectives and uncertainty aspects. This method is applied to the case study of the Black Mesa Region in Northern Arizona which is being strip mined for coal. One important concern in large-scale surface mining is the reclamation of mine spoils to bring about beneficial land uses while observing economic, social, environmental, and legal constraints. Protrade considers a set of linear objective functions with random parameters, subject to a set of physical constraints; the preferences of the decision maker are articulated in a progressive manner, and alternative solutions are generated. Nonlinear deterministic equivalents are introduced to account for uncertainty in some of the parameters involved. While no final policy recommendations are made, this illustration of Protrade is carried out to investigate the potential of the method for trading off multiple objectives and measures of uncertainty in water and other natural resource system design problems.

[1]  Ambrose Goicoechea,et al.  Multiobjective programing in watershed management: A study of the Charleston Watershed , 1976 .

[2]  A. Charnes,et al.  Deterministic Equivalents for Optimizing and Satisficing under Chance Constraints , 1963 .

[3]  Yacov Y. Haimes.  Hierarchical Modeling for the Planning and Management of a Total Regional Water Resource System : Joint Consideration of the Supply and Quality of Ground and Surface Water Resources , 1976 .

[4]  Ellsworth Thomas Bartlett.  A decision-aiding model for planning optimal resource allocation of water basins. , 1974 .

[5]  Ambrose Goicoechea.  A multi-objective, stochastic programming model in watershed management , 1977 .

[6]  Roman Krzysztofowicz,et al.  Preference Criterion and Group Utility Model for Reservoir Control Under Uncertainty , 1978 .

[7]  L. Duckstein,et al.  Uncertainty in Sediment Yield from a Semi-Arid Watershed , 1974 .

[8]  D. Major.  Benefit‐Cost Ratios for Projects in Multiple Objective Investment Programs , 1969 .

[9]  L. Duckstein,et al.  Multi-Criterion Ranking of Alternative Long-Range Water Resource Systems , 1976 .

[10]  J. Cohon.  Multiobjective optimization in water resources systems , 1976 .

[11]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Multiplicative Utility Functions , 1974, Oper. Res..

[12]  D. H. Marks,et al.  Multiobjective screening models and water resource investment , 1973 .

[13]  Bernard Roy,et al.  Problems and methods with multiple objective functions , 1971, Math. Program..

[14]  Sang M. Lee,et al.  Goal programming for decision analysis , 1972 .

[15]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  An iterative algorithm for interactive multiobjective programming , 1977 .

[16]  Roman Krzysztofowicz,et al.  Comment on A review and evaluation of multiobjective programing techniques by Jared L. Cohon and D , 1977 .

[17]  Fritz H. Brinck,et al.  Optimal Livestock Production of Rehabilitated Mine Lands , 1976 .

[18]  R. Benayoun,et al.  Linear programming with multiple objective functions: Step method (stem) , 1971, Math. Program..

[19]  Lucien Duckstein,et al.  Preference Criterion for Flood Control Under Uncertainty , 1979 .

[20]  Martin M. Fogel,et al.  Determination of Sediment Yield by Transferring Rainfall Data , 1977 .

[21]  Arthur M. Geoffrion,et al.  Solving Bicriterion Mathematical Programs , 1967, Oper. Res..

[22]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Utility theory for decision making , 1970 .

[23]  R. Keeney,et al.  An illustrative example of the use of multiattribute utility theory for water resource planning , 1977 .

[24]  Lucien Duckstein,et al.  Interactive multiobjective programing in water resources: A case study , 1973 .

[25]  D. H. Marks,et al.  A review and evaluation of multiobjective programing techniques , 1975 .