A COMPARISON OF WEIGHTING METHODS IN POWER PLANT SITING

The insufficient attention that too often is paid to the characteristics required of attribute weights prevents multiattribute decision rules from accurately representing preferences. The weighting summation or linear model requires weights to be proportional to the relative value of unit changes in their attribute value functions. Only then will weights accurately reflect the trade-offs decision makers are willing to make. A number of methods of choosing weights are critiqued from this perspective. Applications of weighting methods in power plant siting are surveyed, and a siting study of western Maryland is presented. Two weighting methods were used, one deriving weights from trade-offs made by decision makers and the other asking decision makers to choose weights on a scale of 0 to 10. The locations picked by the two methods differ strikingly.

[1]  A. Comrey.  A proposed method for absolute ratio scaling , 1950, Psychometrika.

[2]  J P GUILFORD,et al.  A validation study of ratio-judgment methods. , 1954, The American journal of psychology.

[3]  Russell L. Ackoff,et al.  An Approximate Measure of Value , 1954, Oper. Res..

[4]  Robert T. Eckenrode,et al.  Weighting Multiple Criteria , 1965 .

[5]  Arthur L. Dudycha,et al.  The Effect of Variations in the Cue R Matrix Upon the Obtained Policy Equation of Judges , 1966 .

[6]  David H. Stembon.  Utility Measurement in Public Health Decision Making , 1969 .

[7]  H. J. Einhorn.  The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. , 1970, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. , 1971 .

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

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

[11]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments , 1973 .

[12]  DIMENSIONS OF UTILITY IN A REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT , 1974 .

[13]  R. Dawes,et al.  Linear models in decision making. , 1974 .

[14]  John K. Siu,et al.  MAKING TRADE-OFFS* , 1974 .

[15]  George P. Huber,et al.  METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITIES AND MULTI‐ATTRIBUTE UTILITIES*† , 1974 .

[16]  Stanley M. Nealey,et al.  A Method for Integrating Societal and Technical Judgments in Environmental Decision Making , 1975 .

[17]  Socially weighted linear composites in environmental decision making. [Nuclear power plant site options] , 1975 .

[18]  William W. Cooper,et al.  A goal interval programming model for resource allocation in a marine environmental protection program , 1976 .

[19]  Russell L. Gum,et al.  Quantifying societal goals: Development of a weighting methodology , 1976 .

[20]  Howard Wainer,et al.  Estimating Coefficients in Linear Models: It Don't Make No Nevermind , 1976 .

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

[22]  T. L. Saaty.  A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[23]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Convergent validation of decomposed multi-attribute utility assessment procedures for risky and riskless decisions , 1977 .

[24]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Nuclear siting using decision analysis , 1977 .

[25]  Ralph L. Keeney.  Evaluation of Proposed Storage Sites , 1979, Oper. Res..

[26]  Rowe,et al.  Comparison of site evaluation methods , 1979 .

[27]  Rowe,et al.  Comparison of regional screening methods , 1979 .