Post on 19-Jan-2016
MCDA can be realized in many ways
21.0
4.23A. Decision makers and experts use MCDA on their own, no stakeholders involved
B. Stakeholders opinions are included in MCDA e.g. by using questionnaire
C. Stakeholders are actively involved in all phases of MCDA
Stakeholders’ involvement
A
B
C
Sta
keho
lder
s’ le
arni
ng,
com
mun
icat
ion,
and
app
rova
l
Low High
Low
High
Mika Marttunen SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute
Timo Karjalainen University of Oulu
Raimo P. Hämäläinen Aalto University, Systems Analysis Laboratory
GDN 2012 | An International Meeting on Group Decision and NegotiationRecife, Brazil, 20 - 24 May, 2012
Engaging stakeholders in environmental planning projects by using MCDA approach in Finland
State-of-the-art in MCDA
MCDA applications in environmental planning are diverse and rapidly increasing.• Water resources, fisheries and forestry management, energy and
climate policies, traffic, spatial/GIS etc…
MCDA is used to activate and involve stakeholder.
How to design and implement MCDA processes which are understandable, meaningful and effective from participants’ points of views?
21.0
4.23
Charateristics of good participation processes (e.g. Beierle 2002, French et al. 2005)
• Involves stakeholders early
• Fair and open
• Incorporates public values and knowledge into decision making
• Enhances learning
• Builds trust between participants
• Cost-effective
Stages of Stakeholder Involvement – the MCDA ladder Role of stakeholders? How to gather preference information ?
21.0
4.23
Tan
eli D
uuna
ri-T
yönt
ekijä
inen
, S
YK
E
4
Experts are using MCDA on their own, stakeholders are not involved.
Postal questionnaires are used to collect preference information.
Incr
ease
in
stak
ehol
der
s’s
role
an
d in
tera
ctio
n
Decision conferences or workshops are used to collect preference information from stakeholders .
Personal and interactive computer aided interviews
Personal interviews and group discussions (DAI approach)
Interactive computer supported MCDA process based on personal interviews (Marttunen and Hämäläinen 1995).
Helps participants to develop a well-informed opinion about the alternatives.
Easy to describe differences in stakeholders’ opinions. Useful to identify groups having similar perspectives
Our experience: 10 real environmental projects. Altogether 250 people personally interviewed, 10-30 people in a project.
Softaware used: Web-HIPRE, Excel spreadsheets and a customized MCDA tool.
The Decision Analysis Interview (DAI) approach21.0
4.23
5
FRAMING, ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
Impact matrix Preliminary estimates for the importances of the impacts
Value tree
STAKEHOLDERS’ OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVES
Identifying and structuring objectives and developing
alternatives
ALTERNATIVES’ IMPACTS
Defining attributes, scales and performance
scores
STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS
Studying workbook material and answering
the questionnaire
INTERACTIVE USE OF MCDA SOFTWARE
SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSDifferent perspectives and value profilesIssues of agreement and disagreement
Attributes’ weights, arguments and
consistency-checking
Analysis of the results
Modifications to the value tree and to the performance
scores
Discussion of the responses to the
questionnaire
Decision analysis interview approach
21.0
4.23
Name of the proejct
Evaluation of the
alternatives
Identification of information
gaps and uncertainties
Describing stakeholders’ preferences
Partici-pants’
learning
Joint solution finding
WATER COURSE REGULATION /HYDRO POWER
Oulujärvi x x
Päijänne x x x x
Pirkanmaa x x x x
Koitere x x x x
Plavinas x
FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
Kokemäenjoki x x x
Rovaniemi x x x x
RESTORATION PROJECTS
Mustionjoki x x x x x
Iijoki x x x x x
Primary aims in some of SYKE’s MCDA projects
The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA projects
Interaction level of MCDA process
Low
Very high
Integration level of MCDA into the decision
process
Low
Very high
Key stakeholders are actively involved in the different phases of the
analysis, and the weight elicitation and analysis of
the results are done interactively with computer
supported tool.
Experts dominate.Stakeholders are not actively involved into
the process.
The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA projects
Interaction level of MCDA process
Low
Very high
Integration level of MCDA into the decision
process
Low
Very highMCDA is tightly linked into
the planning process. MCDA provides a roadmap and evaluation framework
for the project.
MCDA is a separate exercise which do not have impact on decision making.
Integration of MCDA and interaction levels in the projects
Interaction level of the MCDA process
Low
Very high
Integration level of MCDA into the decision
process Oulujärvi (1992)
Ylä-Lappi (2008)
Koitere (2005)
Päijänne (1998)
Pirkanmaa (2002)
Kokemäenjoki (1993)
Low
Very high
Iijoki (2010)
Mäntsälä (2007)
Keski-Suomi (2011)
Mustionjoki (2010)
Plavinas (2006)Rovaniemi (2012)
Pielinen (2011)
Mustionjoki River restoration project
Enhancement of endangered pearl mussel and salmon stock
A heavily modified and regulated river
21.0
4.23
Multiple stakeholder events related to MCDA
21.0
4.23
The benefits of DAI approach in group decision making = improved collaborative
planning
13
21.0
4.23
Tan
eli D
uuna
ri-T
yönt
ekijä
inen
, S
YK
E
14
Building a commonly accepted evaluation framework has positive systemic impacts.
• Participants’ objectives form the basis for the whole evaluation
Supports shifting discussion towards ”opening up” mode.
• What are the alternatives? What kind of impacts have they ? What kind of uncertanties relate to them?
DAI aims at individual and social learning.• Understanding the real magnitude of impacts• How do people consider the alternatives and their impacts ?• What are the issues of agreement and disagreement?
Shifts participant’s mental model into co-operative mode
21.0
4.23
Tan
eli D
uuna
ri-T
yönt
ekijä
inen
, S
YK
E
15
Supports the synthesis of information.
Helps people carefully consider the alternatives’ impacts as well as their own preferences.
Interactiveness enables immediate feedback (”learning by analysing”).
Easy to see differences in people’s perspectives. .
Improves understanding
21.0
4.23
Tan
eli D
uuna
ri-T
yönt
ekijä
inen
, S
YK
E
16
Stakeholders are actively involved in the problem framing and structuring phases.
Stakeholder knowledge invited and efficiently utilized.
Evaluation of alternatives is systematic and open. Participants can revise expert evaluations of
impacts. Every participant has a ” voice” which is
documented.
Improves fairness and transparency
21.0
4.23
Tan
eli D
uuna
ri-T
yönt
ekijä
inen
, S
YK
E
17
During the process people learn to better understand other people’s objectives.
Trust towards the project and authorities responsible for it improves.
Several meetings => people get familiar to each other => feeling of togetherness may develop.
Risk that MCDA will be considered as a black box method decreases.
Enhances trust
21.0
4.23
Tan
eli D
uuna
ri-T
yönt
ekijä
inen
, S
YK
E
18
Brings structure, systemacy and rigourness to process.
New approach for most participants => people are eager to participate.
People have possibility to analyse their opinions and get their opinions documented.
Strong support and positive feedback from the participants.
Sustains interest of participants on the
process
21.0
4.23
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DECISION SITUATION
DAI APPROACH
PARTICIPATION AND LEARNING
Opportunities for joint-gains improvesWillingness to compromise increases
Commitment to the outcome
MCDA in group decision making
Findings from the DAI approach DAI focuses on learning and understanding better different perspectives.
• No need to find agreement on the weights of the criteria
The choice of the stakeholders is crucial. Participants’ opinions should cover a wide range opinions
The process is relatively laborious.• Common problem structuring and impact assessment
Flexibility needed from the MCDA team.• Process is iterative and evolutionary
Weight elicitation process is cognitively demanding.• Interactive approach helps and diminishes mistakes
21.0
4.23
Conclusions
High quality decisions are based on good understanding what is important (values) and what are the impacts of the alternatives (facts).
The quality of the outcome and the acceptability of the planning process depends on how fair and open people consider it.
MCDA has a great potential in improving the quality of group decision making processes.• Integrated and interactive approach!
21.0
4.23
21.0
4.23
THANK YOU!