IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i14p5588-d383203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weight Approximation for Spatial Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Jay Simon

    (Kogod School of Business, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20016, USA)

Abstract

When preferences explicitly include a spatial component, it can be challenging to assign weights to geographic regions in a way that is both pragmatic and accurate. In multi-attribute decision making, weights reflect cardinal information about preferences that can be difficult to assess thoroughly in practice. Recognizing this challenge, researchers have developed several methods for using ordinal rankings to approximate sets of cardinal weights. However, when the set of weights reflects a set of geographic regions, the number of weights can be enormous, and it may be cognitively challenging for decision makers to provide even a coherent ordinal ranking. This is often the case in policy decisions with widespread impacts. This paper uses a simulation study for spatial preferences to evaluate the performance of several rank-based weight approximation methods, as well as several new methods based on assigning each region to a tier expressing the extent to which it should influence the evaluation of policy alternatives. The tier-based methods do not become more cognitively complex as the number of regions increases, they allow decision makers to express a wider range of preferences, and they are similar in accuracy to rank-based methods when the number of regions is large. The paper then demonstrates all of these approximation methods with preferences for water usage by census block in a United States county.

Suggested Citation

  • Jay Simon, 2020. "Weight Approximation for Spatial Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-18, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:14:p:5588-:d:383203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5588/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5588/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, R. Y., 1982. "Generating random vectors uniformly distributed inside and on the surface of different regions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 205-209, June.
    2. Paul L. Ewing & William Tarantino & Gregory S. Parnell, 2006. "Use of Decision Analysis in the Army Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Military Value Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 33-49, March.
    3. L. Robin Keller & Jay Simon, 2019. "Preference Functions for Spatial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 244-256, January.
    4. Peter C. Fishburn, 1965. "Independence in Utility Theory with Whole Product Sets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 28-45, February.
    5. Suhua Zhou & Guangqi Chen & Ligang Fang & Yunwen Nie, 2016. "GIS-Based Integration of Subjective and Objective Weighting Methods for Regional Landslides Susceptibility Mapping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, April.
    6. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    7. Ferretti, Valentina & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2016. "Key challenges and meta-choices in designing and applying multi-criteria spatial decision support systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65368, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg & Ying He, 2014. "Augmenting Ordinal Methods of Attribute Weight Approximation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 21-26, March.
    9. Harju, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Virtanen, Kai, 2019. "Spatial multi-attribute decision analysis: Axiomatic foundations and incomplete preference information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 167-181.
    10. Schlaepfer, Rodolphe & Iorgulescu, Ion & Glenz, Christian, 2002. "Management of forested landscapes in mountain areas: an ecosystem-based approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 89-99, June.
    11. Rao, J. S. & Sobel, Milton, 1980. "Incomplete Dirichlet integrals with applications to ordered uniform spacings," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 603-610, December.
    12. Jay Simon & Craig W. Kirkwood & L. Robin Keller, 2014. "Decision Analysis with Geographically Varying Outcomes: Preference Models and Illustrative Applications," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(1), pages 182-194, February.
    13. Katrin Borcherding & Thomas Eppel & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1991. "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(12), pages 1603-1619, December.
    14. Valentina Ferretti & Gilberto Montibeller, 2019. "An Integrated Framework for Environmental Multi‐Impact Spatial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 257-273, January.
    15. Susanna Sironen & Laura Mononen, 2018. "Spatially Referenced Decision Analysis of Long-Term Forest Management Scenarios in Southwestern Finland," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-46, September.
    16. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    17. Agrell, Per J. & Stam, Antonie & Fischer, Gunther W., 2004. "Interactive multiobjective agro-ecological land use planning: The Bungoma region in Kenya," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(1), pages 194-217, October.
    18. Eun-Sung Chung & Kwangjae Won & Yeonjoo Kim & Hosun Lee, 2014. "Water Resource Vulnerability Characteristics by District’s Population Size in a Changing Climate Using Subjective and Objective Weights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-17, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    2. Stephen P. Chambal & Jeffery D. Weir & Yucel R. Kahraman & Alex J. Gutman, 2011. "A Practical Procedure for Customizable One-Way Sensitivity Analysis in Additive Value Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 303-321, December.
    3. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    4. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    5. Richard M. Anderson & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2002. "Using a Bayesian Approach to Quantify Scale Compatibility Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(12), pages 1555-1568, December.
    6. de Almeida Filho, Adiel T. & Clemente, Thárcylla R.N. & Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 453-461.
    7. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    8. Abbas, Ali E. & Hupman, Andrea C., 2023. "Scale dependence in weight and rate multicriteria decision methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 225-235.
    9. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2017. "A Robustness Study of State-of-the-Art Surrogate Weights for MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 677-691, July.
    11. Eduarda Asfora Frej & Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa, 2019. "Using data visualization for ranking alternatives with partial information and interactive tradeoff elicitation," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 909-931, December.
    12. Moshkovich, Helen M. & Mechitov, Alexander I. & Olson, David L., 2002. "Ordinal judgments in multiattribute decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(3), pages 625-641, March.
    13. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    14. Jay Simon, 2016. "On the existence of altruistic value and utility functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 371-391, September.
    15. Manel Baucells & Juan A. Carrasco & Robin M. Hogarth, 2008. "Cumulative Dominance and Heuristic Performance in Binary Multiattribute Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1289-1304, October.
    16. Majid Zerafat Angiz Langroudi & Ali Emrouznejad & Adli Mustafa & Joshua Ignatius, 2013. "Type-2 TOPSIS: A Group Decision Problem When Ideal Values are not Extreme Endpoints," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 851-866, September.
    17. Ali Abbas, 2004. "Maximum Entropy Utility," Game Theory and Information 0403002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Hovanov, Nikolai & Yudaeva, Maria & Hovanov, Kirill, 2009. "Multicriteria estimation of probabilities on basis of expert non-numeric, non-exact and non-complete knowledge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 857-863, June.
    19. Ralph L. Keeney, 2002. "Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 935-945, December.
    20. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:14:p:5588-:d:383203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.