1 / 19

MCDA; Regime Analysis and Flag Model

Explore the application of regime analysis and flag model for evaluation of Maastricht Aachen Airport, examining criteria, impacts, evaluation processes, and scenarios. Learn about the flag model's acceptability of alternatives, regime analysis methodology, and ranking of alternatives. This comprehensive evaluation framework provides insights into decision-making processes and stakeholder conflicts.

ccolvin
Download Presentation

MCDA; Regime Analysis and Flag Model

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. MCDA; Regime Analysis and Flag Model

  2. Introduction Evaluation Regime Analysis and Flag Model Application of the methods Maastricht Aachen Airpot: a short description Definition of criteria and impacts Regime Analysis; obtaining of rank order of alternatives Flag Model: acceptability of alternatives Conclusions Overview of the presentation

  3. History of evaluation • The standard evaluation framework from an economic perspective is Cost-Benefit Analysis. • Unfortunately, many intrinsic shortcomings and practical limitations are related to CBA (accuracy of information , distributional equity, compensatory payments, discount rate, lifetime of the project). • Resulting in the development of alternative evaluation methods, such as multicriteria analysis. • Aim. Closer orientation towards actual decision-making processes (cyclical nature of process, interactivity, conflicts between stakeholders, inclusion of unpriced effects, equity concerns, etc.)

  4. 1. Problem definition 2. Definition of alternatives 3. Definition of criteria and weights 4. Impact assessment 5. Analysis of scores and alternatives 6. Conclusions Evaluation process

  5. Maastricht Aachen Airport

  6. Maastricht Aachen Airport: 4 scenarios Scenario 1: Business as Usual • A further decrease of aircargo handling at MAA. • Stabilisation of passengers traffic (350.000 p.y). Scenario 2: MAA as a Passengers Airport • Construction of a new runway . • Outplacement of the Dutch National Aviation School. Scenario 3: MAA as an “Euregio” Airport • Construction of a new large runway to accommodate larger aircrafts. • Open night regime (24 hours). Scenario 4: Tradeable Permits • MAA is a buyer on the market of CO2 permits. • No expansion without acquisition of additional permits

  7. 1 2 3 4 Steps in the Flag Model

  8. Impacts of the scenarios

  9. Criteria and benchmark values

  10. Benchmark CTV min CTV max A B C D Section A Green, No reason for specific concern Section B Yellow, Be alert Section C Red, Reverse trends Section D Black, Bad development CTV = Critical Treshold Value Flag Model

  11. Frequencies of flag counts

  12. Frequencies of flag counts

  13. Frequencies of flag counts

  14. 1. Problem definition 2. Definition of alternatives 3. Definition of criteria and weights 4. Impact assessment 5. Analysis of scores and alternatives 6. Conclusions Evaluation

  15. Regime analysis • Regime analysis is a discrete multicriteria method. • The basic idea is to rank a set of alternatives by means of their pairwise comparisons in relation to a set of criteria. • Regime analysis makes use of an impact matrix and a set of weights. • The method can cope with qualitative, quantitative and mixed data.

  16. Regime analysis 2 • Concordance set; all criteria for which alternative A performs better than, or is equal to, alternative B. • Discordance set; all criteria for which alternative A performs worse than, or is equal to, alternative B. • Concordance index; summation of the weights that are related to the criteria in the concordance set (Cab). • Disconcordance index; summation of the weights that are related to the criteria in the concordance set (DCba). • Net concordance index = concordance index - disconcordance index • If sign of CI is positive. Alternative A is preferred above B.

  17. Regime analysis; ranking alternatives

  18. Regime analysis; ranking alternatives 1. Passenger Airport 2. MAA serving the “Euregio” 3. Business as Usual 4. Tradeable Permits

  19. Conclusions • Structuring the evaluation process ensures the compatibility between the assessment method(s) used and the problem. • The methods are capable of dealing with the multiple dimensions of projects (e.g. social, cultural, ecological, technological, institutional, etc.). • The methods give due attention to interest conflicts among stakeholders involved. (Different weight schemes in Regime). • The methods can take into account qualitative as well as quantitative effects of projects. • Flag model gives a clear visualization of the effects. • Flag model can play an important role in the interactive design of alternatives and criteria.

More Related