IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v24y2015i4d10.1007_s10726-014-9403-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflict Analysis for Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study of a Transportation System in a Tourist Area

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandro Luè

    (Poliedra - Politecnico di Milano
    Politecnico di Milano)

  • Alberto Colorni

    (Politecnico di Milano)

Abstract

The paper presents a conflict analysis in an environmental impact assessment. In order to cope with a problem of traffic congestion in a tourist area, alternative transportation services and measures of travel demand management are studied and compared using the multi-attribute value theory. The problem is characterized by the presence of different criteria and conflicting actors who have different interests (expressed by criteria weights) and different decision power, which have been elicited from the actors’ representatives. A group viewpoint is generated through an aggregation of the different actors’ viewpoints, in order to find a group compromise solution. A conflict analysis, conducted on the criteria weights, is performed to examine the level of agreement associated with the compromise solution.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandro Luè & Alberto Colorni, 2015. "Conflict Analysis for Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study of a Transportation System in a Tourist Area," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 613-632, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:24:y:2015:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-014-9403-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-014-9403-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-014-9403-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-014-9403-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Van den Honert, R. C. & Lootsma, F. A., 2000. "Assessing the quality of negotiated proposals using the REMBRANDT system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 162-173, January.
    2. Bose, Utpal & Davey, Anne M. & Olson, David L., 1997. "Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-706, December.
    3. Kenneth Button & Erik Verhoef (ed.), 1998. "Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 940.
    4. Anne Shepherd & Christi Bowler, 1997. "Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 725-738.
    5. Khaled Jabeur & Jean-Marc Martel & Slim Ben Khélifa, 2004. "A Distance-Based Collective Preorder Integrating the Relative Importance of the Group's Members," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 327-349, July.
    6. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
    7. Sébastien Damart & Luis Dias & Vincent Mousseau, 2007. "Supporting groups in sorting decisions: methodology and use of a multi-criteria aggregation-disaggregation DSS," Post-Print halshs-00170234, HAL.
    8. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    9. Ray, Thomas G. & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 1998. "Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 129-136, April.
    10. Huizingh, Eelko K. R. E. & Vrolijk, Hans C. J., 1997. "A Comparison of Verbal and Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 237-247, June.
    11. R.C. Van den Honert, 2001. "Decisional Power in Group Decision Making: A Note on the Allocation of Group Members' Weights in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 275-286, May.
    12. Ralph L. Keeney, 1976. "A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 140-145, October.
    13. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    14. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1482 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Matsatsinis, Nikolaos F. & Samaras, Andreas P., 2001. "MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 414-429, April.
    16. William G. Stillwell & Detlof von Winterfeldt & Richard S. John, 1987. "Comparing Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical Weighting Methods for Eliciting Multiattribute Value Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 442-450, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tobias Fasth & Samuel Bohman & Aron Larsson & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson, 2020. "Portfolio Decision Analysis for Evaluating Stakeholder Conflicts in Land Use Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 321-343, April.

    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. Fu-Ling Cai & Xiuwu Liao & Kan-Liang Wang, 2012. "An interactive sorting approach based on the assignment examples of multiple decision makers with different priorities," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 87-108, August.
    2. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    3. Suzana de Suzana Dantas Daher & Adiel Teixeira Almeida, 2012. "The Use of Ranking Veto Concept to Mitigate the Compensatory Effects of Additive Aggregation in Group Decisions on a Water Utility Automation Investment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 185-204, March.
    4. Malcolm J. Beynon, 2006. "The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-42, January.
    5. Jian Hu & Sanjay Mehrotra, 2012. "Robust and Stochastically Weighted Multiobjective Optimization Models and Reformulations," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 936-953, August.
    6. Luis C. Dias & Paula Sarabando, 2012. "A Note on a Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 231-237, September.
    7. José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador & Pilar Gargallo & Alfredo Altuzarra, 2016. "Systemic decision making in AHP: a Bayesian approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 261-284, October.
    8. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    9. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    10. Ralph L. Keeney, 2013. "Foundations for Group Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 103-120, June.
    11. Lienert, Judit & Duygan, Mert & Zheng, Jun, 2016. "Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 746-760.
    12. Andrej Bregar, 2019. "Application of a hybrid Delphi and aggregation–disaggregation procedure for group decision-making," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 3-32, May.
    13. Thomas Vanoutrive & Ann Verhetsel (ed.), 2013. "Smart Transport Networks," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15483.
    14. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2016. "The precise consistency consensus matrix in a local AHP-group decision making context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 245-259, October.
    15. Tom Pape, 2020. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: Concept, measures and application," Papers 2012.13816, arXiv.org.
    16. Cathy Macharis & Peter Nijkamp, 2013. "Stakeholder bias in multi-actor multi-criteria transportation evaluation: issues and solutions," Chapters, in: Thomas Vanoutrive & Ann Verhetsel (ed.), Smart Transport Networks, chapter 12, pages 248-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    18. Lundström, Johanna & Öhman, Karin & Rönnqvist, Mikael & Gustafsson, Lena, 2014. "How reserve selection is affected by preferences in Swedish boreal forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 40-50.
    19. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    20. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Range-based Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis: A combined method of Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to support participatory decision making under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 257-269.

    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:spr:grdene:v:24:y:2015:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-014-9403-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.