Mika MarttunenMika MarttunenFinnish EnvironmentFinnish Environment Institute Institute R., P. HämäläinenR., P. HämäläinenHelsinki University of TechnologyHelsinki University of Technology

Project web page:Project web page:www.paijanne.hut.fiwww.paijanne.hut.fi

DECISION ANALYSIS INTERVIEWS IN THE DECISION ANALYSIS INTERVIEWS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF A LARGE REGULATED MANAGEMENT OF A LARGE REGULATED

WATER COURSEWATER COURSE

FinlandFinland

STUDY STUDY AREAAREA

RiverRiverKymijokiKymijoki

Lake Lake PäijännePäijänne

200 km200 km

MAIN INTERESTS OF LAKE PÄIJÄNNE MAIN INTERESTS OF LAKE PÄIJÄNNE AND RIVER KYMIJOKI (1/2)AND RIVER KYMIJOKI (1/2)

• LAKE PÄIJÄNNELAKE PÄIJÄNNEArea 1 116 kmArea 1 116 km22

Length of shoreline 2 248 kmLength of shoreline 2 248 km

Maximum depth 95 mMaximum depth 95 mMean depth 16 mMean depth 16 mNumber of islands 988Number of islands 988

• RIVER KYMIJOKIRIVER KYMIJOKILength 180 kmLength 180 kmMean flow 305 mMean flow 305 m33/s/s

MAIN INTERESTS OF LAKE PÄIJÄNNEMAIN INTERESTS OF LAKE PÄIJÄNNEAND RIVER KYMIJOKIAND RIVER KYMIJOKI

RECREATIONAL USERECREATIONAL USE• 100 000 fishers • 100 000 fishers • 10 000 summer cottages• 10 000 summer cottages

FLOOD PROTECTIONFLOOD PROTECTION• Hundreds of buildings • Hundreds of buildings

situated in flood-risk areassituated in flood-risk areas• 5 km• 5 km22 flood-prone fields flood-prone fields

HYDRO POWERHYDRO POWER• 12 power plants• 12 power plants• 9 % of Finnish hydro • 9 % of Finnish hydro power productionpower production

Regulated and ”natural” water levels Regulated and ”natural” water levels of Lake Päijänne (1971-1999)of Lake Päijänne (1971-1999)

77,70

77,80

77,90

78,00

78,10

78,20

78,30

78,40

78,50

78,60

78,70

1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9. 1.10. 1.11. 1.12.

”Natural”

Regulated

(NN+ m) Regulated NaturalMHW 78,67 78,71MW 78,21 78,25MNW 77,76 77,87

NN+ m

Dissatisfaction among the users of LakeDissatisfaction among the users of Lake Päijänne Päijänne• • Low water levels during springLow water levels during spring• • Changes on littoral zone vegetationChanges on littoral zone vegetation• • Negative impacts on reproduction of fishNegative impacts on reproduction of fish

LAKE PÄIJÄNNE REGULATION LAKE PÄIJÄNNE REGULATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECTDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

• Project was carried out in 1995-1999 Project was carried out in 1995-1999

• Objective: To Objective: To assess the possibilities to alleviate assess the possibilities to alleviate the adverse impacts of regulation the adverse impacts of regulation – water levels and flowswater levels and flows– fish stock managementfish stock management– maintenancemaintenance– disseminationdissemination

• Steering groupSteering group– 20 representatives of different stakeholders20 representatives of different stakeholders

• Total costs 1 million Total costs 1 million euroseuros

Socially acceptable

regulation regimes

Ecologically sustainable regulation regimes

Economically feasible regulation regimes

GOAL: SUSTAINABLE REGULATION GOAL: SUSTAINABLE REGULATION STRATEGY FOR LAKE PÄIJÄNNESTRATEGY FOR LAKE PÄIJÄNNE

• Many impacted groups Many impacted groups - Over 20 interest groups- Over 20 interest groups

• Multiple objectivesMultiple objectives- Hydro power, flood protection, - Hydro power, flood protection, recreational use, fishing, boating, floatingrecreational use, fishing, boating, floatingenvironment, tourism etc.environment, tourism etc.

• • Several decision makersSeveral decision makers- Representatives of steering group- Representatives of steering group

• Extensive data Extensive data - 18 subprojects- 18 subprojects

• • Value tradeoffsValue tradeoffs- Ecological, social and economic impacts - Ecological, social and economic impacts - Lake Päijänne and River Kymijoki- Lake Päijänne and River Kymijoki

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEMDESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

• Permit holder of the regulation licensePermit holder of the regulation license– Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (1)Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (1)

• Regional and local authoritiesRegional and local authorities– Regional Environment Centres (5)Regional Environment Centres (5)– Regional Councils (3)Regional Councils (3)– Employment and Economic Development Centre (3)Employment and Economic Development Centre (3)– Municipality (1)Municipality (1)

• Fishermen (3)Fishermen (3)• Central Union of Agricultural producers and Forest Owners (1)Central Union of Agricultural producers and Forest Owners (1)• PäijännePäijänne Nature Centre (1) Nature Centre (1)• Floating Association (1) Floating Association (1) • Hydro power companies (1)Hydro power companies (1)

STEERING GROUPSTEERING GROUP

THE MAIN IMPACTS OF REGULATIONTHE MAIN IMPACTS OF REGULATION

IMPACTIMPACT PÄIJÄNNEPÄIJÄNNE KYMIJOKIKYMIJOKI

Flood protectionFlood protection ++++ ++++

Hydro powerHydro power 00 ++++

Boating and floatingBoating and floating ++ ++

Recreational useRecreational use - -- - (spring) (spring) ++

+ ++ + (summer) (summer) ++

Littoral ecosystemLittoral ecosystem - -- - --

FishFish - -- - 00

+++/--- strong, ++/-- moderate and +/- weak postive or negative impact+++/--- strong, ++/-- moderate and +/- weak postive or negative impact

VALUE TRADEOFFSVALUE TRADEOFFS

Between:Between:• impacts directed on Lake impacts directed on Lake Päijänne and Päijänne and River River

KymijokiKymijoki• economic, ecological and social impactseconomic, ecological and social impacts• different economic impactsdifferent economic impacts• different ecological impacts different ecological impacts • different social impactsdifferent social impacts

• How to reconcile the conflicting objectives?How to reconcile the conflicting objectives?

• How to efficiently utilize the collected data in How to efficiently utilize the collected data in decision making process?decision making process?

QUESTIONSQUESTIONS

THE GOAL WAS TO COMPILE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH THE GOAL WAS TO COMPILE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH COULD BE ACCEPTED BY ALL STAKEHOLDERSCOULD BE ACCEPTED BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS

LEARNINGPROCESS

Public participation Impact assessment

CONSENSUSSOLUTION

Methods supporting multi-objective decision making

DISPUTES

VALUE TREE ANALYSIS

DECISION ANALYSISDECISION ANALYSIS

• Methods applied in structuring and Methods applied in structuring and analysing extensive and complex decision analysing extensive and complex decision problems dealing with subjective problems dealing with subjective preferences and incommensurable criteriapreferences and incommensurable criteria

• MethodsMethods– Value tree analysisValue tree analysis– Decision treeDecision tree– Influence diagramInfluence diagram

VALUE TREE INTERVIEWSVALUE TREE INTERVIEWS

• All representatives of steering group were All representatives of steering group were interviewed (20 persons)interviewed (20 persons)

• Face to face and computer supported Face to face and computer supported – InteractiveInteractive– Direct feedbackDirect feedback– HIPRE 3+ programHIPRE 3+ program

• Duration varied from 1,5 - 3 hoursDuration varied from 1,5 - 3 hours

• To enhance the learning process of steering groupTo enhance the learning process of steering group• Overall picture of the problemOverall picture of the problem• Comparison of incommensurable factorsComparison of incommensurable factors

• To clarify values and opinions of different stakeholdersTo clarify values and opinions of different stakeholders• Which impacts are perceived to be most important?Which impacts are perceived to be most important?• Which are the most preferred and disliked alternatives?Which are the most preferred and disliked alternatives?• How strong are the differences in the opinions between stakeholders?How strong are the differences in the opinions between stakeholders?

THE OBJECTIVES OF INTERVIEWSTHE OBJECTIVES OF INTERVIEWS

PHASESPHASES

• StuctureStucture the decision problem the decision problem – Value treesValue trees

• Assess the impact of each alternativeAssess the impact of each alternative– Outcomes for alternativesOutcomes for alternatives

• Determine preferences of decision makersDetermine preferences of decision makers– Weights for attributesWeights for attributes

• Analysis of the resultsAnalysis of the results– Sensitivity analysisSensitivity analysis

THE BESTREGULATIONPRACTICE

NATURE

FLOOD DAMAGES

INDUSTRY

RECREA-TIONAL USE

AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTIONS

LANDSCAPE

HYDRO POWER

FLOATING

TOURISM

USABILITY OF SHORELINE

FISHING

HABITATS

FISH

BIRDS

ALTERNATIVES

• FLOODPREVENTION

• RECREATION

• ECOLOGICAL

VALUE TREE FOR NORMAL WATER YEARSVALUE TREE FOR NORMAL WATER YEARS

ENTER-PREUNERS

PHASESPHASES

• StuctureStucture the decision problem the decision problem – Value treesValue trees

• Assess the impacts of each alternativeAssess the impacts of each alternative– Measurement ratings Measurement ratings

• Determine preferences of decision makersDetermine preferences of decision makers– Weights for attributesWeights for attributes

• Analysis of the resultsAnalysis of the results– Sensitivity analysisSensitivity analysis

PHASESPHASES

• StuctureStucture the decision problem the decision problem – Value treesValue trees

• Assess the impact of each alternativeAssess the impact of each alternative– Outcomes for alternativesOutcomes for alternatives

• Determine preferences of decision makersDetermine preferences of decision makers– Weights for attributesWeights for attributes

• Analysis of the resultsAnalysis of the results– Sensitivity analysisSensitivity analysis

PHASESPHASES

• StuctureStucture the decision problem the decision problem – Value treesValue trees

• Assess the impact of each alternativeAssess the impact of each alternative– Outcomes for alternativesOutcomes for alternatives

• Determine preferences of decision makersDetermine preferences of decision makers– Weights for attributesWeights for attributes

• Analysis of the resultsAnalysis of the results– Sensitivity analysisSensitivity analysis

WEIGHTS GIVEN BY VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS ON THE NATURE ATTRIBUTE

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

WATER AUTHORITIES

FISHERS

ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS

(NORMAL WATER YEAR)

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

• Value tree analysis enhanced the learning process of the Value tree analysis enhanced the learning process of the steering groupsteering group– Improved overall picture of the problemImproved overall picture of the problem– New information of the impacts of regulationNew information of the impacts of regulation– Clarification of own valuesClarification of own values– Improved understanding of the other stakeholders’ Improved understanding of the other stakeholders’

objectivesobjectives

• The results of analysis were applied in the development of The results of analysis were applied in the development of sustainable regulation strategysustainable regulation strategy– Prioritizations of objectives in different water Prioritizations of objectives in different water

conditionsconditions

THE MOST IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES

MAIN OBJECTIVES NORMAL SPRINGS

DRY SPRINGS

WET SPRINGS

HYDRO POWER FLOOD PROTECTION RECREATIONAL USE ENVIRONMENT FISHERIES FLOATING

• Enough emphasis was paid on the preparation phaseEnough emphasis was paid on the preparation phase• Structuring the problemStructuring the problem• Experiments with students and stakeholdersExperiments with students and stakeholders

• Interviews were personal and interactiveInterviews were personal and interactive

• The used program (HIPRE) was simple and clearThe used program (HIPRE) was simple and clear

• Co-operation between practitioners and scientistsCo-operation between practitioners and scientists

• Value tree analysis was tightly connected with DMValue tree analysis was tightly connected with DM

ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSELEMENTS OF SUCCESS

RESULTSRESULTS

• Based on the attribute weights three different Based on the attribute weights three different groups characterised by groups characterised by – emphasisemphasis on the original objectives of on the original objectives of

regulation (4 persons)regulation (4 persons)– emphasis on recreational and nature values of emphasis on recreational and nature values of

Lake Lake Päijänne (7Päijänne (7 persons) persons)– balanced ecological and economic valuesbalanced ecological and economic values

(7 persons)(7 persons)

MAIN INTERESTS OF LAKE PÄIJÄNNEAND RIVER KYMIJOKI

INTEREST OBJECTIVES

Environment Biodiversity and productivity of the nature

Recreation High usability of shores, visually nice landscape

Fishing High and diverse catch, natural reproduction, good conditions for fishing

Agriculture No flood damages

Communities Flood protection of buildings

Transportation Boat routes deep enough

Hydro power production High electricity production in winter

QUESTIONSQUESTIONS

• Which impacts are perceived to be most Which impacts are perceived to be most important in different water years?important in different water years?

• Which are the most preferred and disliked Which are the most preferred and disliked alternatives?alternatives?

• How strong are the differences in the How strong are the differences in the opinions between different stakeholders?opinions between different stakeholders?

BIASES IN ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTSBIASES IN ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTS

• Main sources of biasesMain sources of biases

– Psychological reasonsPsychological reasons

– Structure of the value treeStructure of the value tree

– Weighting methodsWeighting methods

• Ways to reduce biasesWays to reduce biases

– Background information and training Background information and training

– Flat and symmetric value treeFlat and symmetric value tree

– InterctiveInterctive and iterative weighting procedure and iterative weighting procedure

– Extra questions and arguments Extra questions and arguments

• The role of analyst is crucialThe role of analyst is crucial

FROM GIS TO DECISION MAKING

• In large projects there are usually extensive In large projects there are usually extensive data on the impacts of different alternatives data on the impacts of different alternatives

• GIS provides good opportonities to visualize GIS provides good opportonities to visualize data on e.g. ecological impactsdata on e.g. ecological impacts

• Decision analysis methods can be applied to Decision analysis methods can be applied to structure and analyse the extensive datastructure and analyse the extensive data

• Need to dynamically link GIS systems and Need to dynamically link GIS systems and decision making modelsdecision making models