IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurjdp/v7y2019i3d10.1007_s40070-019-00101-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The need for unconventional value aggregation techniques: experiences from eliciting stakeholder preferences in environmental management

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Reichert

    (Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Science and Technology)

  • Klemens Niederberger

    (AquaPlus AG)

  • Peter Rey

    (HYDRA Institut für Angewandte Hydrobiologie)

  • Urs Helg

    (Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, FOEN)

  • Susanne Haertel-Borer

    (Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, FOEN)

Abstract

Despite the large literature about non-additive value aggregation techniques, in the large majority of applied decision support processes, additive value aggregation functions are used. The main reasons for this may be the simplicity of the approach, minimum elicitation requirements, software availability, and the appeal of the underlying preference independence concepts that may be strengthened by an adequate choice of sub-objectives and attributes. However, in an applied decision support process, the decision maker(s) or the stakeholders decide on the sub-objectives and attributes to characterize the state of a system and they have to provide information that allows the decision analyst to express their preferences as a value function of these attributes. It is the task of the decision analyst to find the parameterization and parameter values of a value function that fits best the expressed preferences. We describe a value function elicitation process for the ideal morphological state of a lake shore, performed with stakeholders from federal and cantonal authorities and from environmental consulting companies in Switzerland. This process led to the elicitation of strongly non-additive and partly even non-concave value aggregation functions. The objective of this paper is to raise the awareness about the importance of carefully testing the assumptions underlying parameterized (often additive) value aggregation techniques during the preferences elicitation process and to be flexible regarding evaluating value functions that deviate from the often used additive aggregation scheme. This can lead to a higher confidence that additive aggregation is suitable for the specific decision problem or to the selection of alternative aggregation techniques that better represent the decision maker’s preferences in case additivity is violated.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Reichert & Klemens Niederberger & Peter Rey & Urs Helg & Susanne Haertel-Borer, 2019. "The need for unconventional value aggregation techniques: experiences from eliciting stakeholder preferences in environmental management," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 197-219, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eurjdp:v:7:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s40070-019-00101-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40070-019-00101-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40070-019-00101-9
    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/s40070-019-00101-9?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. Marttunen, Mika & Haag, Fridolin & Belton, Valerie & Mustajoki, Jyri & Lienert, Judit, 2019. "Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 604-620.
    2. Korhonen, Pekka & Soleimani-damaneh, Majid & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2016. "Dual cone approach to convex-cone dominance in multiple criteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1139-1143.
    3. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1982. "Relative Risk Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 875-886, August.
    4. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    5. Srinivas Y. Prasad & Mark H. Karwan & Stanley Zionts, 1997. "Use of Convex Cones in Interactive Multiple Objective Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(5), pages 723-734, May.
    6. Grabisch, Michel & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Meyer, Patrick, 2008. "A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the Kappalab R package," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 766-785, April.
    7. Keeney, Ralph L., 1988. "Building models of values," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 149-157, November.
    8. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    9. Pekka Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1984. "Solving the Discrete Multiple Criteria Problem using Convex Cones," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1336-1345, November.
    10. Pekka Korhonen & Majid Soleimani-damaneh & Jyrki Wallenius, 2017. "The use of quasi-concave value functions in MCDM: some theoretical results," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 86(2), pages 367-375, October.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 810-822, August.
    13. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    14. Michel Grabisch & Jean-Luc Marichal & Radko Mesiar & Endre Pap, 2009. "Aggregation functions," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00445120, HAL.
    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. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).

    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. Haag, Fridolin & Lienert, Judit & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter, 2019. "Identifying non-additive multi-attribute value functions based on uncertain indifference statements," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 49-67.
    2. Nasim Nasrabadi & Akram Dehnokhalaji & Pekka Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius, 2019. "Using convex preference cones in multiple criteria decision making and related fields," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(6), pages 699-717, August.
    3. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    4. Mikhail Timonin, 2012. "Maximization of the Choquet integral over a convex set and its application to resource allocation problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 543-579, July.
    5. Labreuche, Christophe & Grabisch, Michel, 2018. "Using multiple reference levels in Multi-Criteria Decision aid: The Generalized-Additive Independence model and the Choquet integral approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 598-611.
    6. Ralph L. Keeney, 2002. "Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 935-945, December.
    7. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.
    8. Alessio Bonetti & Silvia Bortot & Mario Fedrizzi & Silvio Giove & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Andrea Molinari, 2011. "Modelling group processes and effort estimation in Project Management using the Choquet integral: an MCDM approach," DISA Working Papers 2011/12, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised Sep 2011.
    9. Mehmet Pinar, 2022. "Choquet-Integral Aggregation Method to Aggregate Social Indicators to Account for Interactions: An Application to the Human Development Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 1-53, January.
    10. Pekka Korhonen & Majid Soleimani-damaneh & Jyrki Wallenius, 2017. "The use of quasi-concave value functions in MCDM: some theoretical results," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 86(2), pages 367-375, October.
    11. Silvia Bortot & Mario Fedrizzi & Silvio Giove, 2011. "Modelling fraud detection by attack trees and Choquet integral," DISA Working Papers 2011/09, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 31 Aug 2011.
    12. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira, 2011. "Inconsistency and non-additive Choquet integration in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," DISA Working Papers 2011/06, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 29 Jul 2011.
    13. Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka & Kuula, Markku, 2003. "Testing the efficiency of two pairwise comparison methods in discrete multiple criteria problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(3), pages 496-508, March.
    14. Francesco Tajani & Maria Rosaria Guarini & Francesco Sica & Rossana Ranieri & Debora Anelli, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Analysis and Sustainable Accounting. Defining Indices of Sustainability under Choquet’s Integral," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.
    16. Soleimani-damaneh, Majid & Pourkarimi, Latif & Korhonen, Pekka J. & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2021. "An operational test for the existence of a consistent increasing quasi-concave value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 232-239.
    17. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Anastasia Stamatopoulou, 2020. "Shapley and superShapley aggregation emerging from consensus dynamics in the multicriteria Choquet framework," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 583-611, December.
    18. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    19. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2015. "On the decomposition of Generalized Additive Independence models," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 15064, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    20. Colson, Gérard, 1993. "Prenons-nous assez de risque dans les théories du risque?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 111-141, mars.

    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:eurjdp:v:7:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s40070-019-00101-9. 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.