Multicriteria Analysis under Uncertainty with IANUS—Method and Empirical Results

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Multicriteria analysis under uncertainty with IANUS -method and empirical results Bernd Klauer, Martin Drechsler, Frank Messner SummaryIANUS is a method for aiding public decision-making that supports efforts towards sustainable development and has a wide range of application. IANUS stands for 'Integrated Assessment of Decisions uNder Uncertainty for Sustainable Development'. This paper introduces the main features of IANUS and illustrates the method using the results of a case study in the Torgau region (eastern Germany). IANUS structures the decision process into four steps: scenario derivation, criteria selection, modeling, evaluation. Its overall aim is to extract the information needed for a sound, responsible decision in a clear, transparent manner. The method is designed for use in conflict situations where environmental and socioeconomic effects need to be considered and so an interdisciplinary approach is required.Special emphasis is placed on a broad perception and consideration of uncertainty. Three types of uncertainty are explicitly taken into account by IANUS: development uncertainty (uncertainty about the social, economic and other developments that affect the consequences of decision), model uncertainty (uncertainty associated with the prediction of the effects of decisions), and weight uncertainty (uncertainty about the appropriate weighting of the criteria).The backbone of IANUS is a multicriteria method with the ability to process uncertain information. In the case study the multicriteria method PROMETHEE is used. Since PROMETHEE in its basic versions is not able to process uncertain information an extension of this method is developed here and described in detail.

A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany

“…Figure 11 shows that especially urban areas will receive high risk values if large weights is given to the social and economic criteria, whereas a higher weight on the environmental criterion leads to higher risk values in the more rural areas. This underlines the point that the determination of weights together with decision makers is a crucial part of a multicriteria approach (Munda 2006, Proctor andDrechsler 2006). In our pilot study this was not done.…”

“…in Merz andBuck (1999), DTLR (2001) and Omann (2004). Others set their focus on one approach, like Keeney and Raiffa (1993) on the MAUT approach, Drechsler (1999; see also Klauer et al 2006) on extensions of the PROMETHEE approach, or on the Hasse-Diagramm technique (Brüggemann et al 1999;Pudenz et al 2000;Simon 2003;Soerensen et al 2004).…”

PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications

“…Ranking sinter plants through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Fuzzy PROMETHEE Geldermann and Rentz (2001) Environmental assessment for sinter plants Trapezoidal fuzzy intervals Geldermann and Rentz (2005) Ranking scenarios for the coating of PVC parts/LCA - Gilliams et al (2005) To choose among the afforestation strategies for a given class of agricultural land Geographic Information System (GIS)/goal programming technique Hokkanen and Salminen (1997) The location problem of a waste treatment facility - Huth et al (2005) To evaluate tree-harvesting scenarios Stochastic PROMETHEE Kangas et al (2001a) Supporting strategic natural resources planning Fuzzy method Kangas et al (2001b) Ranking forestry strategies - Kapepula et al (2007) Household solid waste management/ranking nine areas - Kiker et al (2005) Decision-making in environmental projects A review paper on MCDA methods including PROMETHEE Klauer et al (2006) Decisions for sustainable development Decisions under uncertainty Le Téno and Mareschal (1998) To evaluate the environmental quality of building products through LCA A new version of PROMETHEE with interval criteria/fuzzy theory Le Téno (1999) LCA PCA/non-parametric bootstrapping Linkov et al (2006a) Ranking contaminated sediment management technologies A review on MCDA for sediment management Linkov et al (2006b) Environmental risk assessment and decision-making strategies/he New York/New Jersey arbor as a case study A review on MCDA applications for contaminated site management Margeta et al (1990) Ranking wastewater disposal alternatives - Marinoni (2006) Land-use suitability assessment An iterative approach/GIS Martin et al (1999) Land-use planning and management GIS Martin et al (2003) The environmental impact assessment (EIA)/ranking sites to build bus station Fuzzy PROMETHEE I and II Mavrotas et al (2006a) To evaluate strategies for reducing atmospheric pollutants - Mergias et al (2007) To select the best scheme for End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) - Moffett and Sarkar (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning A taxonomy of MCDM methods including PROMETHEE Palma et al (2007) To evaluate performance of silvoarable agroforestry - Petras (1997) Ranking the sites for radioactive waste disposal facilities - …”

Organizational Approaches to the Facilitation of Education for Sustainability: An Interpretive Case Study

“…However, the findings demonstrate disparity between the perceived importance stakeholders place upon monitoring and evaluation processes in general and the actual importance to facilitation of EfS they attribute to these processes. These findings have significant implications for DGN more generally as the growing body of research in the area [77][78][79][80][81][82][83] suggests that the implementation of monitoring and evaluation and indicator frameworks to EfS facilitation, and sustainability in general, will continue to gain in importance and the significance of the implementation of these frameworks should certainly not be marginalized.…”