Combining experts’ ratings for partly overlapping concept lists: a feasibility test with cultural sustainability indicators
Keywords:
Computational analysis, Decision support systems, Methodology, Multi-objective, Simulation, Strategic planningAbstract
Acquiring preference information from decision-makers and stakeholders may carry biasing effects due to question framing. In order to avoid unwanted distortions, respondent-driven querying methods are advisable to apply; however, concerning multiple stakeholders a challenge remains how to combine individually collected concepts and further on their individual valuations to an unified preference information. This paper introduces one solution: a semi-automatic stochastic simulation of joint preferences from partially overlapping individual concept lists and preference ratings. We used completed expert interview dataset of cultural sustainability indicators acquired for comparing bioenergy production chains. According to the results the approach seems generally applicable, but the feasibility may vary according to case characteristics. Combining concept list valuations with stochastic simulations may be more feasible the more similar the expected concept structures are. The presented method contributes particularly to planning processes in which democratic participation of a large number of stakeholders is needed in the goal setting phase. However, more tests with different decision problem types are needed to verify and refine the present findings.References
Alho, J., M. Kolehmainen and P. Leskinen. 2001. Regression methods for pairwise comparisons data. P. 235-251 in Schmoldt, D. L., J. Kangas, G.A. Mendoza and M. Pesonen (eds). The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Balana, B.B., E. Mathijs and B. Muys. 2010. Assessing the sustainability of forest management: An application of multi-criteria decision analysis to community forests in northern Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Management 91: 1294-1304.
Buchholz, T.S., T.A. Volk and V. Luzadis. 2007. A participatory systems approach to modeling social, economic, and ecological components of bioenergy. Energy Policy 35: 6084-6094.
Choi, S.H. and B.S. Ahn. 2009. IP-MAGS: an incomplete preference-based multiple attribute group support system. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60: 496-505.
Choi, S.H. and S.M. Bae. 2009. Strategic information systems selection with incomplete preferences: a case of a Korean electronics company. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60: 180-190.
Eden, C. 1988. Cognitive Mapping: a review. European Journal of Operational Research 36: 1-13.
Eden, C., F. Ackermann and S. Cropper. 1992. The analysis of cause maps. Journal of Management Studies 29: 309-324.
Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Franco, L.A. and G. Montibeller. 2010. Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research 205: 489-500.
Gooch, G. and P. Stålnacke (eds.). 2010. Science, Policy and Stakeholders in Water Management: An Integrated Approach to River Basin Management. Earthscan, London.
Hahn, C. H. and B.S. Ahn. 2005. Interactive group decision-making procedure using weak strength of preference. Journal of the Operational Research Society 56: 1204-1212.
Kainulainen, T., P. Leskinen, P. Korhonen, A. Haara and T. Hujala. 2009. A statistical approach to assessing interval scale preferences in discrete choice problems. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60: 252-258.
Kaplowitz, M.D. and S.G. Witter. 2008. Agricultural and residential stakeholder input for watershed management in a mid-Michigan watershed. Landscape and Urban Planning 84: 20-27.
Kearney, A.R. and S. Kaplan. 1997. Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people: The conceptual content cognitive map (3CM). Environment and Behavior 29: 579-617.
van der Lei, T.E. and W.A.H. Thiessen. 2009. Quantitative problem structuring methods for multi-actor problems: an analysis of reported applications. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60: 1198-1206.
Mendoza, G.A. and R. Prabhu. 2000. Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 107-126.
Mendoza, G.A. and R. Prabhu. 2006. Participatory modeling and analysis for sustainable forest management: Overview of soft system dynamics models and applications. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 179-196.
Monti, S., and G. Carenini. 2000. Dealing with the experts inconsistency in probability elicitation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 12(4): 499-508.
Montibeller, G. and V. Belton. 2006. Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options - a review. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57: 779-791.
Montibeller, G., V. Belton, F. Ackermann and L. Ensslin. 2008. Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59: 575-589.
Morton, A. and B. Fasolo. 2009. Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: a guided tour. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60: 268-275.
Myllyviita, T., K. Lähtinen, L.A. Leskinen, T. Hujala, L. Sikanen and P. Leskinen. 2013. Identifying cultural sustainability indicators for wood-based bioenergy production - An application of qualitative mapping technique and Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Submitted to Environment, Development and Sustainability.
Nordström, E.M., C. Romero, L.O. Eriksson and K. Öhman. 2009. Aggregation of preferences in participatory forest planning with multiple criteria: an application to the urban forest in Lycksele, Sweden. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 1979-1992.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2003. OECD Environmental Indicators: development, measurement, and use. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
Özesmi, U. and S. Özesmi. 2004. Ecological models based on people's knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling 176: 43-64.
Phillis, Y.A., E. Grigoroudis and V.S. Kouikoglou. 2011. Sustainability ranking and improvement of countries. Ecological Economics 70: 542-553.
Shaw, D., M. Westcombe, J. Hodgkin and G. Montibeller. 2004. Problem structuring methods for large group interventions. Journal of the Operational Research Society 55: 453-463.
Siau, K. and X. Tan. 2005. Improving the quality of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55: 343-365.
Simon, D., C.J. Snow and S.J. Read. 2004. The Redux of Cognitive Consistency Theories: Evidence Judgments by Constraint Satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86: 814-837.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453-458.
UNESCO. 2002. Unesco Universal declaration of cultural diversity. Adopted by the 31st Session of the General Conference of UNESCO, Paris, 2 November 2001. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf.
Wei, Q., H. Yan, J. Ma and Z. Fan. 2000. A compromise weight for multi-criteria group decision making with individual preference. Journal of the Operational Research Society 51: 625-634.
von Winterfeldt, D. and W. Edwards. 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 624 p.
Wolfslehner, B. and H. Vacik. 2011. Mapping indicator models: From intuitive problem structuring to quantified decision-making in sustainable forest management. Ecological Indicators 11: 274-283.
Xing, Y. and B. Dangerfield. 2011. Modelling the sustainability of mass tourism in island tourist economies. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62: 1742-1752.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) following the publication by the journal, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
