IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v29y2009i1p26-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Katie Steele
  • Yohay Carmel
  • Jean Cross
  • Chris Wilcox

Abstract

We focus on a class of multicriteria methods that are commonly used in environmental decision making—those that employ the weighted linear average algorithm (and this includes the popular analytic hierarchy process (AHP)). While we do not doubt the potential benefits of using formal decision methods of this type, we draw attention to the consequences of not using them well. In particular, we highlight a property of these methods that should not be overlooked when they are applied in environmental and wider decision‐making contexts: the final decision or ranking of options is dependent on the choice of performance scoring scales for the criteria when the criteria weights are held constant. We compare this “sensitivity” to a well‐known criticism of the AHP, and we go on to describe the more general lesson when it comes to using weighted linear average methods—a lesson concerning the relationship between criteria weights and performance scoring scales.

Suggested Citation

  • Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:29:y:2009:i:1:p:26-33
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01130.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01130.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01130.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Salminen, Pekka & Hokkanen, Joonas & Lahdelma, Risto, 1998. "Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 485-496, February.
    3. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, September.
    4. Mwana N. Mawapanga & David L. Debertin, 1996. "Choosing between Alternative Farming Systems: An Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-401.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    7. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    8. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834.
    9. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    10. 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.
    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. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    2. Walter Leal Filho & Jelena Barbir & Pınar Gökçin Özuyar & Enrique Nunez & Jose Manuel Diaz-Sarachaga & Bertrand Guillaume & Rosley Anholon & Izabela Simon Rampasso & Julia Swart & Luis Velazquez & The, 2022. "Assessing Provisions and Requirements for the Sustainable Production of Plastics: Towards Achieving SDG 12 from the Consumers’ Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Marie-Sophie Denner & Louis Christian Püschel & Maximilian Röglinger, 2018. "How to Exploit the Digitalization Potential of Business Processes," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 60(4), pages 331-349, August.
    4. Fabiana Gatto & Sara Daniotti & Ilaria Re, 2021. "Driving Green Investments by Measuring Innovation Impacts. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Regional Bioeconomy Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-27, October.
    5. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    6. Erica Vassoney & Andrea Mammoliti Mochet & Claudio Comoglio, 2020. "Multicriteria Analysis for the Assessment of Flow Release Scenarios from a Hydropower Plant in the Alpine Region," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 637-651, January.
    7. Tom Waas & Jean Huge & Thomas BLOCK & Tarah Wright & Francisco Javier Benitez Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/189410, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand & Hossein Azadi & Dereje Teklemariam & Ehsan Houshyar & Philippe Maeyer & Frank Witlox, 2019. "Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 11-36, February.
    9. Ferretti, Valentina & Liu, Jun & Mousseau, V & Ouerdane, W, 2017. "Reference-based ranking procedure for environmental decision making: insights from an ex-post analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 85933, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Maria del Mar Casanovas-Rubio & Carolina Christen & Luz María Valarezo & Jaume Bofill & Nela Filimon & Jaume Armengou, 2020. "Decision-Making Tool for Enhancing the Sustainable Management of Cultural Institutions: Season Content Programming at Palau De La Música Catalana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-24, July.
    11. Ziming Song & Yingyue Sun & Peng Chen & Mingming Jia, 2022. "Assessing the Ecosystem Health of Coastal Wetland Vegetation ( Suaeda salsa ) Using the Pressure State Response Model, a Case of the Liao River Estuary in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Dean, M. & Hickman, R. & Chen, C.-L., 2019. "Testing the application of participatory MCA: The case of the South Fylde Line," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 62-70.
    13. Yizhong Huan & Lingqing Wang & Mark Burgman & Haitao Li & Yurong Yu & Jianpeng Zhang & Tao Liang, 2022. "A multi‐perspective composite assessment framework for prioritizing targets of sustainable development goals," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 833-847, October.
    14. Urszula Kwast-Kotlarek & Maria Hełdak, 2019. "Evaluation of the Construction and Investment Process of a High-Pressure Gas Pipeline with Use of the Trenchless Method and Open Excavation Method. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Valeria Salvatori & Estelle Balian & Juan Carlos Blanco & Xavier Carbonell & Paolo Ciucci & László Demeter & Agnese Marino & Andrea Panzavolta & Andrea Sólyom & Yorck von Korff & Juliette Claire Young, 2021. "Are Large Carnivores the Real Issue? Solutions for Improving Conflict Management through Stakeholder Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, April.
    16. V. M. Jayasooriya & S. Muthukumaran & A. W. M. Ng & B. J. C. Perera, 2018. "Multi Criteria Decision Making in Selecting Stormwater Management Green Infrastructure for Industrial areas Part 2: A Case Study with TOPSIS," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(13), pages 4297-4312, October.
    17. Hongnian Chen & Xianfeng Tan & Yan Zhang & Bo Hu & Shuming Xu & Zhenfen Dai & Zhengxuan Zhang & Zhiye Wang & Yawei Zhang, 2023. "Study on Groundwater Function Zoning and Sustainable Development and Utilization in Jining City Planning Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Baumann, Manuel & Weil, Marcel & Peters, Jens F. & Chibeles-Martins, Nelson & Moniz, Antonio B., 2019. "A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 516-534.
    19. Ferretti, Valentina & Geneletti, Davide, 2020. "Does the spatial representation affect criteria weights in environmental decision-making? Insights from a behavioral experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    20. Lynn A. Maguire, 2009. "Letter to the Editor," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1493-1493, November.
    21. Jessica Weber & Johann Köppel, 2022. "Can MCDA Serve Ex-Post to Indicate ‘Winners and Losers’ in Sustainability Dilemmas? A Case Study of Marine Spatial Planning in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-30, October.

    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. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    2. Behnam Malakooti, 2015. "Double Helix Value Functions, Ordinal/Cardinal Approach, Additive Utility Functions, Multiple Criteria, Decision Paradigm, Process, and Types (Z Theory I)," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1353-1400, November.
    3. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    4. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    5. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    6. Andrew G. Loerch & Robert R. Koury & Daniel T. Maxwell, 1999. "Value added analysis for army equipment modernization," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(3), pages 233-253, April.
    7. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    8. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    9. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    10. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    11. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    12. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    13. Tavana, M. & Kennedy, D. T. & Joglekar, P., 1996. "A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 523-538, October.
    14. Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.
    15. Katie Steele, 2009. "Response," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1494-1494, November.
    16. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    17. Devesh Kumar & Gunjan Soni & Rohit Joshi & Vipul Jain & Amrik Sohal, 2022. "Modelling supply chain viability during COVID-19 disruption: A case of an Indian automobile manufacturing supply chain," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1224-1240, December.
    18. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck, 2009. "Towards a Single European Sky," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 400-414, October.
    19. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    20. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:29:y:2009:i:1:p:26-33. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.