1 / 27

MCDA in natural resources management PART I

MCDA in natural resources management PART I. Jouni Pykäläinen, D.Sc.(For.) Metsämonex Ltd. Contents. planning steps quantifying and non-quantifying planning approaches prior and interactive articulation of preferences applying explicit utility modelling in forest management planning

jovita
Download Presentation

MCDA in natural resources management PART I

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 in natural resources managementPART I Jouni Pykäläinen, D.Sc.(For.) Metsämonex Ltd

  2. Contents • planning steps • quantifying and non-quantifying planning approaches • prior and interactive articulation of preferences • applying explicit utility modelling in forest management planning • pros and cons of the introduced approach • example of interactive approach • computer based (CB) - MCDA; examples and exercises by using HIPRE -software

  3. Why MCDA? • even a single DM often has multiple goals in NRE -planning • in many cases, several participants - with equal or unequal decision authority • NRE-planning problems are often very complex • finding the best plan calls for effective techniques for determining the NRE management goals and comparing and evaluating the decision alternatives • -> multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has become more and more popular in NRE planning

  4. Planning = supporting decision making • planning steps: • a) structuring the decision problem • b) assessing possible impacts of each decision alternative • c) determining preferences of the DM and other participants of planning (goal analysis) • d) comparing and evaluating decision alternatives • --------------------------------------------------------------------- • decision making (selection among alternative plans) • the order of the steps may vary • the steps may be repeated several times • the steps may be implemented even simultaneusly

  5. Characteristics of non-quantifying planning approach • many sided discussions and illustrations • collaborative learning is emphasized • DM’s and other planning participants’ goals are defined verbally or graphically • holistic evaluation of the alternatives

  6. Characteristics of quantifying planning approach • goals for NRE-management defined numerically in so called utility models • problem solving (optimization) techniques set requirements for measuring goals and realization of them in different alternatives • optimization; utility is maximized by solving the utility model

  7. Utility models • explicit utility functions • target-, constraint- aspiration- and acceptability levels for the criteria values • mathematical programming applications • restricting the amount of acceptable solutions interactively • simplifying utility function determination

  8. Optimization • explicit utility functions • discrete cases: including the values of criteria produced by different alternatives to the utility function and calculating the results • in continuous cases (plenty of alternatives): heuristic optimization techniques • mathematical programming algorithms (e.g. Simplex algorithm)

  9. Prior articulation of preferences • assumes, that a utility model, which directly results in an optimal plan, can be formulated in the first trial • straightforward process: defining the utility model and solving it

  10. Interactive articulation of preferences • the solution is gradually improved by alternating the steps of defining the utility model and solving it • process is continued until the DM is satisfied with the result • DM’s goals are an important output of the planning process • the DM learns his preferences in the specific planning case during the process

  11. When is it wise to use interactive techniques? • in planning situations where it is too difficult to define the utility model in advance • NRE –management goals are fuzzy for the DM • production possibilities of the planning area #ARE# not known well enough in advance • effects of producing different goals on the resource #ARE# not known well enough in advance • difficulties in using and understanding the planning method and/or the planning interface; interactive approach offers good possibilities for practising the planning technique

  12. Hybrid approach of prior and interactive articulation of preferences • to reach a plan that fulfils the DM's goals in the best possible way, both prior and interactive articulation of preferences may be needed • promoting the DM’s understanding of the bases for the solutions and planning more generally, adequate prior articulation of preferences probably decreases the amount of iterations needed in the interactive step • -> increases the DM's trust in the method and prevents frustration

  13. A quantitative approach of MCDA: applying explicit utility modelling in forest management planning (Utility analysis in this presentation) • the approach illustrates: how a #multi- criteria# decision should be made ? • goals and utilities offered by different alternatives measured explicitly on interval scale • methods using ordinal and qualitative scales may give the same alternative to be the best one and even the priority order may become the same • remarkable differences in further analysis possibilities and communicational aspects

  14. Planning steps in utility analysis • Formulation of the decision hierarchy • Defining sub-utility functions • Defining weights for the goals • Calculating the priorities for the alternatives • Sensitivity analysis

  15. Decision hierarchy example

  16. Sub-utility functions Criteria/sub-criteria have different values in different alternatives Sub-utility functions transform values of the criteria measured in their own units into subjective sub-utility values [0-1].

  17. Defining forms of sub-utility functions • paired comparisons • different scales available • direct numeric method • interpolation of intermediate values • graphic interfaces • SMART

  18. Effect of setting weights for the criteria/sub-criteria. weight = 0,6 weight = 0,4

  19. Defining weights for criteria and sub-criteria • paired comparisons • different scales available • direct numeric method • interpolation of intermediate values • graphic interfaces

  20. Calculating the total utilities produced by the alternatives • rescaled (weighted) sub-utilities are summed up where ui(qi) is a sub-utility function for criteria i qi is the value of criteria i ai is the weight of criteria i n is the number of criteria

  21. Output Total utility criteria

  22. Including the participants in the utility model formulation • For example: • one common utility function for all participants produced through discussions and negotiations • own weights for the criteria/sub-criteria defined by different participants • own weights and sub-utility functions defined by different participants • some parts of the utility model can be formulated by experts

  23. Example of including ”parties” level in the decision hierarchy Pykäläinen et al. 1997

  24. Sensitivity analysis • effects of changing the weights of the criteria/sub-criteria • effects of changing the forms of the sub-utility functions • effects of changing the weights of the parties in cases of multiple participants

  25. Some pros of the introduced approach • explicit definition of the decision making principles; transparency • forces one to focus on essentials • possibilities to integrate expert knowledge into utility models • effective technical problem solving • possibilities to sensitivity analysis

  26. Some cons of the introduced approach • difficulties in measuring some of the criteria • risk that all important aspects are not included into the planning model • possible difficulties in understanding the planning method • requires time for educating the planning method for the planning participants

  27. Non-quantifying vs. quantifying approach • a) planning problems often complex • b) there are also several goals which should be taken into account at the same time • c) quantifying the problem may be difficult or even impossible • d) different people have different ways to grasp and process information (learning styles) • a + b -> need for quantifying approaches • c + d -> need for non-quantifying approach • Best support for decisions is often attained by using both approaches in the same process and comparing and evaluating the results of them.

More Related