1 / 13

MCDS methods in strategic planning- alternatives for AHP

MCDS methods in strategic planning- alternatives for AHP. Annika Kangas & Jyrki Kangas. Ecological information. Ecological / recreational information often has low quality risk of ditch maintenance or clearcutting to watercourse wildlife population viability

placido
Télécharger la présentation

MCDS methods in strategic planning- alternatives for AHP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MCDS methods in strategic planning- alternatives for AHP Annika Kangas & Jyrki Kangas Saariselkä 19.-21.4.2001

  2. Ecological information • Ecological / recreational information often has low quality • risk of ditch maintenance or clearcutting to watercourse • wildlife population viability Need for methods that deal with low quality information and uncertainty

  3. Public participation • Public participation (e.g.in State forests) involves a large number of participants • Group decision making involves several DMs  high costs and poor availability of information Need for methods that have low information requirements and enable cheap preference elicition

  4. Multicriteria approval • Based on approval voting • instead of several voters several criteria considered • Information requirements • criteria ranked according to importance • acceptability of alternatives with respect to each criteria, for example • above average  acceptable • below average  not acceptable

  5. Usability • Could be used for public participation • post or internet inquiries • Criteria values measured in ratio or interval scale are downscaled to ordinal scale  information is lost

  6. Outranking • Ordinal, interval and ratio scale information can be used • information transformed to pseudo-criteria • uncertainty dealt with pseudo-criteria thresholds • Weights of criteria interpreted as votes • If intensities of preferences are known, information may be lost

  7. Public participation example • In State owned forests public participation obligatory • Case study • four participants: FPS, regional group, local group and public • four main criteria: FPS’s business revenues, socio-economic values, recreational values and conservational values, measured with 17 variables • six strategies

  8. Decision hierarchy

  9. Observed rankings

  10. Group decision making example • Jointly owned forests problem in forest management • all owners need to approve management actions • Case study • three owners with equal share • 20 forest plans • six criteria: net incomes, value of the forest, landscape beauty, blueberry yield, capercaillie viability and biodiversity

  11. Observed rankings

  12. Requirements • Methods that utilise both low and high quality information • forest information fairly accurate when compared to ecological criteria • all information in use, nothing wasted • Uncertainty dealt with explicitly • Distributions of uncertain criterion values and / or criterion weights

  13. SMAA - a possibility • Stochastic multicriteria acceptance analysis • what kind of preferences support any one alternative • Weight information can be exact, partial or nonexistent • Criterion values • uncertain cardinal values from distribution • ordinal values converted to cardinal using simulation

More Related