Saariselk 19.-21.4.

2001
MCDS methods in strategic
planning- alternatives for AHP
Annika Kangas & Jyrki Kangas
Ecological information
Ecological / recreational information often
has low quality
risk of ditch maintenance or clearcutting to
watercourse
wildlife population viability
Need for methods that deal with low quality
information and uncertainty
Public participation
Public participation (e.g.in State forests)
involves a large number of participants
Group decision making involves several
DMs
high costs and poor availability of information
Need for methods that have low information
requirements and enable cheap preference
elicition
Multicriteria approval
Based on approval voting
instead of several voters several criteria
considered
Information requirements
criteria ranked according to importance
acceptability of alternatives with respect to each
criteria, for example
above average acceptable
below average not acceptable
Usability
Could be used for public participation
post or internet inquiries
Criteria values measured in ratio or interval
scale are downscaled to ordinal scale
information is lost
Outranking
Ordinal, interval and ratio scale information
can be used
information transformed to pseudo-criteria
uncertainty dealt with pseudo-criteria
thresholds
Weights of criteria interpreted as votes
If intensities of preferences are known,
information may be lost
Public participation example
In State owned forests public participation
obligatory
Case study
four participants: FPS, regional group, local group and
public
four main criteria: FPSs business revenues, socio-
economic values, recreational values and conservational
values, measured with 17 variables
six strategies
Decision hierarchy
Observed rankings
Strategy HIPRE Promethee II ELECTRE III
Business 1 1 6
Basic 2 3 1
Forest recreation 3 2 3
Mixed 2 4 4 4
Mixed 1 5 5 2
Nature conservation 6 6 5
Group decision making example
Jointly owned forests problem in forest
management
all owners need to approve management actions
Case study
three owners with equal share
20 forest plans
six criteria: net incomes, value of the forest, landscape
beauty, blueberry yield, capercaillie viability and
biodiversity
Observed rankings
Alternative AHP Promethee I Promethee II Promethee II
with AHP weights
MA
S1 5. 1. 2. 7.
S2 4. 1. 1. 4.
S3 11. 1. 7. 3. 1.
S4 1. 18. 10.
S5 8. 14. 12. .
S6 3. 1. 4. 5.
S7 19. 8. 19.
S8 7. 19. 20.
S9 13. 1. 5. 9.
S10 2. 20. 18.
S11 14. 10. 14.
S12 6. 17. 2.
S13 9. 1. 3. 8.
S14 18. 12. 16.
S15 12. 1. 6. 6.
S16 10. 13. 1.
S17 15. 16. 11.
S18 20. 9. 20.
S19 16. 1. 15. 13.
S20 17. 11. 15.
Requirements
Methods that utilise both low and high
quality information
forest information fairly accurate when
compared to ecological criteria
all information in use, nothing wasted
Uncertainty dealt with explicitly
Distributions of uncertain criterion values and /
or criterion weights
SMAA - a possibility
Stochastic multicriteria acceptance analysis
what kind of preferences support any one
alternative
Weight information can be exact, partial or
nonexistent
Criterion values
uncertain cardinal values from distribution
ordinal values converted to cardinal using
simulation