Multicriteria analysis under uncertainty with IANUS - method and empirical results
IANUS is a method for aiding public decision-making that supports efforts towards sustainable development and has a wide range of application. IANUS stands for Integrated Assessment of Decisions uNder Uncertainty for Sustainable Development. This paper introduces the main features of IANUS and illustrates the method using the results of a case study in the Torgau region (eastern Germany). IANUS structures the decision process into four steps: scenario derivation, criteria selection, modeling, evaluation. Its overall aim is to extract the information needed for a sound, responsible decision in a clear, transparent manner. The method is designed for use in conflict situations where environmental and socioeconomic effects need to be considered and so an interdisciplinary approach is required. Special emphasis is placed on a broad perception and consideration of uncertainty. Three types of uncertainty are explicitly taken into account by IANUS: development uncertainty (uncertainty about the social, economic and other developments that affect the consequences of decision), model uncertainty (uncertainty associated with the prediction of the effects of decisions), and weight uncertainty (uncertainty about the appropriate weighting of the criteria). The backbone of IANUS is a multicriteria method with the ability to process uncertain information. In the case study the multicriteria method PROMETHEE is used. Since PROMETHEE in its basic versions is not able to process uncertain information an extension of this method is developed here and described in detail.
|Date of creation:||2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: ++49 - 0341 - 235-2771
Fax: ++49 - 0341 - 235-2825
Web page: http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=1445
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
- O'Connor, Martin, 2000. "Pathways for environmental evaluation: a walk in the (Hanging) Gardens of Babylon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 175-193, August.
- 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.
- Joubert, Alison R. & Leiman, Anthony & de Klerk, Helen M. & Katua, Stephen & Aggenbach, J. Coenrad, 1997. "Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 123-140, August.
- Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans, 1990. "The PROMETHEE methods for MCDM: the PROMCALC, GAIA and BANK ADVISER software," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9337, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- D'Avignon, G. R. & Vincke, Ph., 1988. "An outranking method under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 311-321, September.
- De Marchi, B. & Funtowicz, S. O. & Lo Cascio, S. & Munda, G., 2000. "Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 267-282, August.
- Nijkamp, P. & Spronk, J., 1978. "Interactive multiple goal programming," Serie Research Memoranda 0003, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
- Roy, Bernard, 1990. "Decision-aid and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 324-331, April.
- Munda, G. & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P., 1994. "Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 97-112, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzdps:22002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.