MCDA can be realized in many ways

1
MCDA can be realized in many ways
Engaging stakeholders in environmental planning
projects by using MCDA approach in Finland
A. Decision makers and experts use MCDA on their
own, no stakeholders involved
B. Stakeholders opinions are included in MCDA
e.g. by using questionnaire
C. Stakeholders are actively involved in all
phases of MCDA
High
Mika Marttunen SYKE, Finnish Environment
Institute Timo Karjalainen University of
Oulu Raimo P. Hämäläinen Aalto University,
Systems Analysis Laboratory GDN 2012 An
International Meeting on Group Decision and
Negotiation Recife, Brazil, 20 - 24 May, 2012
C
Stakeholders learning, communication, and
approval
B
A
Low
Low
High
Stakeholders involvement
2
State-of-the-art in MCDA

• MCDA applications in environmental planning are
  diverse and rapidly increasing.
• Water resources, fisheries and forestry
  management, energy and climate policies, traffic,
  spatial/GIS etc
• MCDA is used to activate and involve stakeholder.
• How to design and implement MCDA processes which
  are understandable, meaningful and effective from
  participants points of views?

3
Charateristics of good participation processes
(e.g. Beierle 2002, French et al. 2005)

• Involves stakeholders early
• Fair and open
• Incorporates public values and knowledge into
  decision making
• Enhances learning
• Builds trust between participants
• Cost-effective

4
Stages of Stakeholder Involvement the MCDA
ladder Role of stakeholders? How to gather
preference information ?
Personal interviews and group discussions (DAI
approach)
Personal and interactive computer aided
interviews
Decision conferences or workshops are used to
collect preference information from stakeholders .
Increase in stakeholderss role and interaction
Postal questionnaires are used to collect
preference information.
Experts are using MCDA on their own,
stakeholders are not involved.
5
The Decision Analysis Interview (DAI) approach

• Interactive computer supported MCDA process based
  on personal interviews (Marttunen and Hämäläinen
  1995).
• Helps participants to develop a well-informed
  opinion about the alternatives.
• Easy to describe differences in stakeholders
  opinions.
• Useful to identify groups having similar
  perspectives
• Our experience 10 real environmental projects.
• Altogether 250 people personally interviewed,
  10-30 people in a project.
• Softaware used
• Web-HIPRE, Excel spreadsheets and a customized
  MCDA tool.

6
Decision analysis interview approach
FRAMING, ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY
EVALUATION
STAKEHOLDERS OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVES
Identifying and structuring objectives and
developing alternatives
ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS Defining attributes,
scales and performance scores
STAKEHOLDERS VIEWS Studying workbook material
and answering the questionnaire
Impact matrix
Preliminary estimates for the importances of the
impacts
Value tree
INTERACTIVE USE OF MCDA SOFTWARE
Attributes weights, arguments and
consistency-checking
Analysis of the results
Modifications to the value tree and to the
performance scores
Discussion of the responses to the questionnaire
SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Different
perspectives and value profilesIssues of
agreement and disagreement
7
Primary aims in some of SYKEs MCDA projects
Name of the proejct Evaluation of the alternatives Identification of information gaps and uncertainties Describing stakeholders preferences Partici-pants learning Joint solution finding
Water course regulation /hydro power Water course regulation /hydro power Water course regulation /hydro power Water course regulation /hydro power Water course regulation /hydro power Water course regulation /hydro power
Oulujärvi x x
Päijänne x x x x
Pirkanmaa x x x x
Koitere x x x x
Plavinas x
Flood risk management Flood risk management Flood risk management Flood risk management Flood risk management Flood risk management
Kokemäenjoki x x x
Rovaniemi x x x x
Restoration projects Restoration projects Restoration projects Restoration projects Restoration projects Restoration projects
Mustionjoki x x x x x
Iijoki x x x x x
8
The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA
projects
Very high
Key stakeholders are actively involved in the
different phases of the analysis, and the weight
elicitation and analysis of the results are done
interactively with computer supported tool.
Experts dominate. Stakeholders are not actively
involved into the process.
Integration level of MCDA into the decision
process
Low
Very high
Low
Interaction level of MCDA process
9
The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA
projects
MCDA is tightly linked into the planning process.
MCDA provides a roadmap and evaluation framework
for the project.
Very high
Integration level of MCDA into the decision
process
MCDA is a separate exercise which do not have
impact on decision making.
Low
Very high
Low
Interaction level of MCDA process
10
Integration of MCDA and interaction levels in the
projects
Mustionjoki (2010)
Very high
Pirkanmaa (2002)
Koitere (2005)
Päijänne (1998)
Kokemäenjoki (1993)
Mäntsälä (2007)
Integration level of MCDA into the decision
process
Pielinen (2011)
Iijoki (2010)
Oulujärvi (1992)
Plavinas (2006)
Rovaniemi (2012)
Ylä-Lappi (2008)
Keski-Suomi (2011)
Low
Very high
Low
Interaction level of the MCDA process
11
Mustionjoki River restoration project

• Enhancement of endangered pearl mussel and salmon
  stock
• A heavily modified and regulated river

12
Multiple stakeholder events related to MCDA
13
The benefits of DAI approach in group decision
making improved collaborative planning
14

• Building a commonly accepted evaluation framework
  has positive systemic impacts.
• Participants objectives form the basis for the
  whole evaluation
• Supports shifting discussion towards opening up
  mode.
• What are the alternatives? What kind of impacts
  have they ? What kind of uncertanties relate to
  them?
• DAI aims at individual and social learning.
• Understanding the real magnitude of impacts
• How do people consider the alternatives and their
  impacts ?
• What are the issues of agreement and
  disagreement?

15

• Supports the synthesis of information.
• Helps people carefully consider the alternatives
  impacts as well as their own preferences.
• Interactiveness enables immediate feedback
  (learning by analysing).
• Easy to see differences in peoples perspectives.
  .

16

• Stakeholders are actively involved in the problem
  framing and structuring phases.
• Stakeholder knowledge invited and efficiently
  utilized.
• Evaluation of alternatives is systematic and
  open.
• Participants can revise expert evaluations of
  impacts.
• Every participant has a voice which is
  documented.

17

• During the process people learn to better
  understand other peoples objectives.
• Trust towards the project and authorities
  responsible for it improves.
• Several meetings gt people get familiar to each
  other gt feeling of togetherness may develop.
• Risk that MCDA will be considered as a black box
  method decreases.

18

• Brings structure, systemacy and rigourness to
  process.
• New approach for most participants gt people are
  eager to participate.
• People have possibility to analyse their opinions
  and get their opinions documented.
• Strong support and positive feedback from the
  participants.

19
MCDA in group decision making
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DECISION SITUATION
DAI APPROACH
PARTICIPATION AND LEARNING
Opportunities for joint-gains improves Willingness
to compromise increases Commitment to the outcome
20
Findings from the DAI approach

• DAI focuses on learning and understanding better
  different perspectives.
• No need to find agreement on the weights of the
  criteria
• The choice of the stakeholders is crucial.
• Participants opinions should cover a wide range
  opinions
• The process is relatively laborious.
• Common problem structuring and impact assessment
• Flexibility needed from the MCDA team.
• Process is iterative and evolutionary
• Weight elicitation process is cognitively
  demanding.
• Interactive approach helps and diminishes
  mistakes

21
Conclusions

• High quality decisions are based on good
  understanding what is important (values) and what
  are the impacts of the alternatives (facts).
• The quality of the outcome and the acceptability
  of the planning process depends on how fair and
  open people consider it.
• MCDA has a great potential in improving the
  quality of group decision making processes.
• Integrated and interactive approach!

22
THANK YOU!