“…In the two Netherland cases (Monnikhof & Bots, 2000), which involved large citizen groups, the processes were stalled and there was low interest in the outcome of the MCDA's. The influence of the MCDA on the final policy outcome was very limited: "Two analyses with diverging results were performed, both were heavily User input not used further in the process Low interest in outcome of process Project stalled Cain et al (2003) and Monnikhof and Bots (2000) Selecting and using criteria Not all criteria and options included in system Criteria not independent of each other Criteria double counted as they use the same variables Criteria uncertain as data is contested Borges Pedro and Villavicencio (2004), Calizaya et al (2010), Cowell et al (2006), Linkov et al (2006) and Monnikhof and Bots (2000) Elicit weights for criteria Hard to quantify criteria Wide variety in weights leading to "average" indefinable Splitting up or merging criteria can lead to manipulation of ranking Emotional ranking due to people's stakes in the project (2000) Comprehensibility Underlying facts/data/logic can be hard to understand Cain et al (2003) and Cowell et al (2006) contested by the participants", and there was not much "interest in the content of the process anyway, since hardly any concrete proposals were adopted and none carried out so far" (Monnikhof & Bots, 2000, pp. 37-38).…”