IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03193653.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Gino Baudry

    (GEPEA - Laboratoire de génie des procédés - environnement - agroalimentaire - IUT Nantes - Institut Universitaire de Technologie - Nantes - UN - Université de Nantes - UN UFR ST - Université de Nantes - UFR des Sciences et des Techniques - UN - Université de Nantes - IUT Saint-Nazaire - Institut Universitaire de Technologie Saint-Nazaire - UN - Université de Nantes - EPUN - Ecole Polytechnique de l'Université de Nantes - UN - Université de Nantes - ONIRIS - École nationale vétérinaire, agroalimentaire et de l'alimentation Nantes-Atlantique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UBL - Université Bretagne Loire - IMT Atlantique - IMT Atlantique - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris] - IUT La Roche-sur-Yon - Institut Universitaire de Technologie - La Roche-sur-Yon - UN - Université de Nantes, LEMNA - Laboratoire d'économie et de management de Nantes Atlantique - IEMN-IAE Nantes - Institut d'Économie et de Management de Nantes - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises - Nantes - UN - Université de Nantes)

  • Cathy Macharis

    (VUB - Vrije Universiteit Brussel [Bruxelles])

  • Thomas Vallée

    (LEMNA - Laboratoire d'économie et de management de Nantes Atlantique - IEMN-IAE Nantes - Institut d'Économie et de Management de Nantes - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises - Nantes - UN - Université de Nantes)

Abstract

Concerns about environmental and social effects have made Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) increasingly popular. Decision making in complex contexts often – possibly always – requires addressing an aggregation of multiple issues to meet social, economic, legal, technical, and environmental objectives. These values at stake may affect different stakeholders through distributional effects characterized by a high and heterogeneous uncertainty that no social actors can completely control or understand. On this basis, we present a new process framework that aims to support participatory decision making under uncertainty: the range-based Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (range-based MAMCA). On the one hand, the process framework explicitly considers stakeholders' objectives at an output level of aggregation. On the other hand, by means of a Monte Carlo analysis, the method also provides an exploratory scenario approach that enables the capture of the uncertainty, which stems from the complex context evolution. Range-based MAMCA offers a unique participatory process framework that enables us (1) to identify the alternatives pros and cons for each stakeholder group; (2) to provide probabilities about the risk of supporting mistaken, or at least ill-suited, decisions because of the uncertainty regarding to the decision-making context; (3) to take the decision-makers' limited control of the actual policy effects over the implementation of one or several options into account. The range-based MAMCA framework is illustrated by means of our first case study that aimed to assess French stakeholders' support for different biofuel options by 2030.

Suggested Citation

  • Gino Baudry & Cathy Macharis & Thomas Vallée, 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," Post-Print hal-03193653, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03193653
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sudipa Choudhury & Apu Kumar Saha & Mrinmoy Majumder, 2020. "Optimal location selection for installation of surface water treatment plant by Gini coefficient-based analytical hierarchy process," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 4073-4099, June.
    2. He Huang & Shary Heuninckx & Cathy Macharis, 2024. "20 years review of the multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) framework: a proposition of a systematic guideline," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 343(1), pages 313-348, December.
    3. M. J. Hermoso-Orzáez & J. Garzón-Moreno, 2022. "Risk management methodology in the supply chain: a case study applied," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 313(2), pages 1051-1075, June.
    4. Ahmad, Salman & Ouenniche, Jamal & Kolosz, Ben W. & Greening, Philip & Andresen, John M. & Maroto-Valer, M. Mercedes & Xu, Bing, 2021. "A stakeholders’ participatory approach to multi-criteria assessment of sustainable aviation fuels production pathways," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    5. Guohua Qu & Rudan Xue & Tianjiao Li & Weihua Qu & Zeshui Xu, 2020. "A Stochastic Multi-Attribute Method for Measuring Sustainability Performance of a Supplier Based on a Triple Bottom Line Approach in a Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-26, March.
    6. Yang, Zaoli & Ahmad, Salman & Bernardi, Andrea & Shang, Wen-long & Xuan, Jin & Xu, Bing, 2023. "Evaluating alternative low carbon fuel technologies using a stakeholder participation-based q-rung orthopair linguistic multi-criteria framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    7. de Castro-Pardo, Mónica & Pérez-Rodríguez, Fernando & Martín-Martín, José María & Azevedo, João C., 2019. "Modelling stakeholders’ preferences to pinpoint conflicts in the planning of transboundary protected areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    8. Licheng Fang & Pangpang Gao & Shuguang Wang & Zhenhao Ma, 2023. "Coupling Fuzzy Bi-Level Chance Constraint Programming and Spatial Analysis for Urban Ecological Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, April.
    9. d’Amore-Domenech, Rafael & Santiago, Óscar & Leo, Teresa J., 2020. "Multicriteria analysis of seawater electrolysis technologies for green hydrogen production at sea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    10. Agathe Osinski, 2021. "Towards a Critical Sustainability Science? Participation of Disadvantaged Actors and Power Relations in Transdisciplinary Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.
    11. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    12. Bekius, Femke & Gomes, Sharlene L., 2023. "A framework to design game theory-based interventions for strategic analysis of real-world problems with stakeholders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(2), pages 925-938.
    13. Puthearath Chan & Myeong-Hun Lee, 2019. "Developing Sustainable City Indicators for Cambodia through Delphi Processes of Panel Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-32, June.
    14. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1032-1046.
    15. Colin Williams & Liping Fang, 2019. "A Value-Focused Multiple Participant-Multiple Criteria (MPMC) Decision Support Approach for Public Policy Formulation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 99-126, February.
    16. Maria Rosaria Guarini & Fabrizio Battisti & Anthea Chiovitti, 2018. "A Methodology for the Selection of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods in Real Estate and Land Management Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-28, February.
    17. Rodríguez Sousa, A.A. & Parra-López, C. & Sayadi-Gmada, S. & Barandica, J.M. & Rescia, A.J., 2020. "A multifunctional assessment of integrated and ecological farming in olive agroecosystems in southwestern Spain using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Melkonyan, Ani & Gruchmann, Tim & Lohmar, Fabian & Kamath, Vasanth & Spinler, Stefan, 2020. "Sustainability assessment of last-mile logistics and distribution strategies: The case of local food networks," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    19. Luo, Shucheng & Xu, Zeshui & Zhu, Bin, 2024. "A bilateral deliberation mechanism for conflict resolving with multi-actor and multi-criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 319(1), pages 234-245.
    20. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    21. Stephen Ball, Christopher & Degischer, Daniel, 2024. "IoT implementation for energy system sustainability: The role of actors and related challenges," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    22. Espada, Ana Luiza Violato & Kainer, Karen A., 2024. "Decision making processes and power dynamics in timber production co-management: A comparative analysis of seven Brazilian Amazonian community-based projects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:hal:journl:hal-03193653. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.