Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment

Sustainability assessments require the management of a wide variety of information types, parameters and uncertainties. Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been regarded as a suitable set of methods to perform sustainability evaluations as a result of its flexibility and the possibility of facilitating the dialogue between stakeholders, analysts and scientists. However, it has been reported that researchers do not usually properly define the reasons for choosing a certain MCDA method instead of another. Familiarity and affinity with a certain approach seem to be the drivers for the choice of a certain procedure. This review paper presents the performance of five MCDA methods (i.e. MAUT, AHP, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE and DRSA) in respect to ten crucial criteria that sustainability assessments tools should satisfy, among which are a life cycle perspective, thresholds and uncertainty management, software support and ease of use. The review shows that MAUT and AHP are fairly simple to understand and have good software support, but they are cognitively demanding for the decision makers, and can only embrace a weak sustainability perspective as trade-offs are the norm. Mixed information and uncertainty can be managed by all the methods, while robust results can only be obtained with MAUT. ELECTRE, PROMETHEE and DRSA are non-compensatory approaches which consent to use a strong sustainability concept, accept a variety of thresholds, but suffer from rank reversal. DRSA is less demanding in terms of preference elicitation, is very easy to understand and provides a straightforward set of decision rules expressed in the form of elementary “if … then …” conditions. Dedicated software is available for all the approaches with a medium to wide range of results capability representation. DRSA emerges as the easiest method, followed by AHP, PROMETHEE and MAUT, while ELECTRE is regarded as fairly difficult. Overall, the analysis has shown that most of the requirements are satisfied by the MCDA methods (although to different extents) with the exclusion of management of mixed data types and adoption of life cycle perspective which are covered by all the considered approaches.

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

[2]  A. Bond,et al.  Sustainability assessment: the state of the art , 2012 .

[3]  Saurabh Gupta,et al.  An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies , 2009 .

[4]  Y. De Smet,et al.  Rank reversal in the PROMETHEE II method: Some new results , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

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

[6]  Lennart Olsson,et al.  Categorising tools for sustainability assessment , 2007 .

[7]  John Turnpenny,et al.  A FRAMEWORK FOR TOOL SELECTION AND USE IN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT , 2007 .

[8]  Nicolas Dechy,et al.  Using a multi-criteria decision aid methodology to implement sustainable development principles within an organization , 2013, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[9]  S. Greco,et al.  Axiomatization of utility, outranking and decision-rule preference models for multiple-criteria classification problems under partial inconsistency with the dominance principle , 2002 .

[10]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Environmental Applications and Case Studies , 2011 .

[11]  S. Greco,et al.  Rough set and rule-based multicriteria decision aiding , 2012 .

[12]  Giuseppe Munda,et al.  The Issue of Consistency: Basic Discrete Multi-Criteria “Methods” , 2008 .

[13]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Conceptualising sustainability assessment , 2004 .

[14]  G. Brundtland,et al.  Our common future , 1987 .

[15]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Rough Sets in Decision Making , 2009, Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science.

[16]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Axiomatic characterization of a general utility function and its particular cases in terms of conjoint measurement and rough-set decision rules , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[18]  Robert B. Gibson,et al.  Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach , 2006 .

[19]  Alessandra Zamagni,et al.  Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1 , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[20]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Sustainable nanotechnology: Defining,measuring and teaching , 2014 .

[21]  B. Roy.  The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods , 1991 .

[22]  José Rui Figueira,et al.  An application of a multi‐criteria approach to assessing the performance of Portugal's economic sectors , 2005 .

[23]  Jean Petit,et al.  Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods , 2002 .

[24]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement of Intangible Criteria and for Decision-Making , 2016 .

[25]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  Intelligent Decision Support , 1992, Theory and Decision Library.

[26]  E. Triantaphyllou,et al.  Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods , 2008 .

[27]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Sustainable Urban Systems: A Review of How Sustainability Indicators Inform Decisions , 2014 .

[28]  M. El-Haram,et al.  A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability , 2008 .

[29]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Rough Set Approach to Decisions under Risk , 2000, Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing.

[30]  Marco Cinelli,et al.  USE OF MULTI CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE AVAILABLE METHODS , 2013 .

[31]  Giuseppe Munda,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development , 2005 .

[32]  Gregory M Peters,et al.  Aggregating sustainability indicators: beyond the weighted sum. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[33]  A. Scolobig,et al.  Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool , 2012 .

[34]  Nasrin R. Khalili,et al.  Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in design of sustainable environmental management system framework , 2013 .

[35]  Giuseppe Munda,et al.  Commensurability and Compensability in Ecological Economics , 1999 .

[36]  T. Saaty.  An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” , 1990 .

[37]  Laurence Guichard,et al.  Ex ante assessment of the sustainability of alternative cropping systems: implications for using multi-criteria decision-aid methods. A review , 2011, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[38]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  A New Rough Set Approach to Evaluation of Bankruptcy Risk , 1998 .

[39]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  Using a Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis: The Case of Nacka Municipality , 2007, Decis. Anal..

[40]  Laurence Guichard,et al.  Comparison of methods to assess the sustainability of agricultural systems. A review , 2011, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[41]  S. Greco,et al.  Decision Rule Approach , 2005 .

[42]  Ines Omann,et al.  MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION AID AS AN APPROACH , 2004 .

[43]  Nardo Michela,et al.  Constructing Consistent Composite Indicators: the Issue of Weights , 2005 .

[44]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  jMAF - Dominance-Based Rough Set Data Analysis Framework , 2013, Rough Sets and Intelligent Systems.

[45]  Timothy A. Volk,et al.  Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments , 2009 .

[46]  S French,et al.  Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding , 1996 .

[47]  Jutta Geldermann,et al.  Software review: “Decision Lab 2000” , 2001 .

[48]  W. D. Keyser,et al.  A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods , 1996 .

[49]  Marta Herva,et al.  Review of combined approaches and multi-criteria analysis for corporate environmental evaluation , 2013 .

[50]  Reza Baradaran Kazemzadeh,et al.  PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[52]  Alessandra Zamagni,et al.  Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2) , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[53]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis to select metrics for design and monitoring of sustainable ecosystem restorations , 2013 .

[54]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method , 2013 .

[55]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  An Overview of ELECTRE Methods and their Recent Extensions , 2013 .

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

[57]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  The Use of Rough Sets and Fuzzy Sets in MCDM , 1999 .

[58]  A. Gasparatosa,et al.  Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool , 2012 .

[59]  Pekka Salminen,et al.  Locating a Waste Treatment Facility by Multicriteria Analysis , 1997 .

[60]  Paul Olomolaiye,et al.  Development of sustainable assessment criteria for building materials selection , 2012 .

[61]  Yves De Smet,et al.  Rank Reversal as a Source of Uncertainty and Manipulation in the PROMETHEE II Ranking: A First Investigation , 2012, IPMU.

[62]  J. Dyer.  Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process , 1990 .

[63]  Andrea De Montis,et al.  Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods , 2004 .

[64]  D. Makowski,et al.  Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farming systems. A review , 2011, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[65]  Charles H. Smith,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Support Software , 2005 .

[66]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. , 2011, The Science of the total environment.

[67]  Ron Vreeker,et al.  Selecting an Appropriate Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Technique for Renewable Energy Planning , 2006 .

[68]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS: THE PROMETHEE METHOD , 1986 .

[69]  James S. Dyer,et al.  Maut — Multiattribute Utility Theory , 2005 .

[70]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Rough set approach to multiple criteria classification with imprecise evaluations and assignments , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[71]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[72]  J. Figueira,et al.  A note on the paper, “Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods”, by Wang and Triantaphyllou, Omega (2008) , 2009 .

[73]  Jiangjiang Wang,et al.  Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making , 2009 .

[74]  Guillermo A. Mendoza,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms , 2006 .

[75]  Bertrand Mareschal,et al.  An interval version of PROMETHEE for the comparison of building products' design with ill-defined data on environmental quality , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[76]  Alessandra Zamagni,et al.  Workshop on life cycle sustainability assessment: the state of the art and research needs—November 26, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[77]  Patrick Rousseaux,et al.  Aid for aggregating the impacts in Life Cycle assessment , 2003 .

[78]  Jacques Teghem,et al.  An interactive decision support system (IDSS) for multicriteria decision aid , 1989 .

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