Mika Marttunen

Mikko Dufva

Finnish Environment Institute

Jyri Mustajoki

Tampere University of Technology

 

 

Timo P. Karjalainen

Thule Institute, University of Oulu

MCDM conference Jyväskylä, June 14th , 2011

Experiences from the interactive use of MCDA in environmental planning projects

1

●Decision analysis interview (DAI) approach

●What do integration and interaction mean in MCDA projects?

●What has been the performance of our MCDA projects in respect of integration and interaction?

●What are the benefits of high level integration and interaction?

●Concluding remarks

Content

●Refers to an MCDA process which is based on personal interviews with a multi-criteria model

●Developed in the beginning of 1990’s ○ Close co-operation with SYKE and Systems Analysis Laboratory

●REAL NEED: Water course regulation development projects○ Conflicting interests and opinions○ Alternatives with economic, social and ecological impacts○ Stakeholders’ participation in the planning process

●CHALLENGE: Linking science into practical applications ○ Primary goal in designing processes which are meaningful and

effective in joint solution finding

Development of the DAI approach2

0.0

4.23

3

FRAMING, ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

Impact matrix Preliminary significance 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

Project Year Scope Tool Personal DAIs

Oulujärvi 1992 Water course regulation HIPRE3 Yes, 35

Kokemäenjoki I 1993 Flood risk management HIPRE3+ Yes, 24

Päijänne 1998 Water course regulation HIPRE3+ Yes, 20

Pirkanmaa 2002 Water course regulation Customized model Yes, 35

Koitere 2005 Water course regulation Customized modelValue-focused thinking

Yes, 18

Plavinas 2006 Hydro power Web-HIPRE No, expert group

Mäntsälä 2006 Lake restoration EXCEL No, expert group

Ylä-Lappi 2008 Forest management Web-HIPRE Yes, 15

Mustionjoki 2010 River rehabilitation Web-HIPREValue-focused thinking

Yes,12

Iijoki 2011 River rehabilitation Web-HIPREValue-focused thinking

Yes, 25

Keski-Suomi 2011 Peat production EXCEL No, expert group

Catermass Ongoing Agriculture Web-HIPRE Open

Kokemäenjoki II Ongoing Flood risk management Open Open

Rovaniemi Ongoing Flood risk management Web-HIPRE Open

Pielinen Ongoing Water course regulation Web-HIPRE Open 5

Major MCDA projects

Project Systematic and

transparent evaluation

of alternatives

Identifi-cation of

information gaps and

uncertainties

Under-standing

stakeholders’ preferences

Learning of partici-

pants

Joint solution finding

Oulujärvi x x x

Kokemäenjoki I x x x

Päijänne x x x x

Pirkanmaa x x x x

Koitere x x x x

Plavinas x

Mäntsälä x

Ylä-Lappi x x x x

Mustionjoki x x x x x

Iijoki x x x x x

Keski-Suomi x

Primary objectives of the projects

6

●Integration○ How MCDA is linked to the planning process and how it

supports various phases of the process.

●Criteria/questions○ When was MCDA introduced into the process?○ How MCDA affected the design and realization of the

planning process?• How well were the phases of MCDA and the planning process

integrated?

○ How MCDA’s results were used in decision making?• What was steering group’s role in MCDA?

Integration –definition and criteria

7

●Interaction○ How key stakeholders are involved in the various phases of

the process and how the weight elicitation and analysis of the results are carried out.

●Criteria/questions○ Who were involved?

• Did participants cover a wide spectrum of views?

○ Did participants have an opportunity to give their input to all phases of MCDA?

○ How interactive was the modelling phase?

Interaction –definition and criteria

8

Evaluation of the projects

Interaction of MCDA

Low

Very high

Integration of MCDA

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)

Mustionjoki-project: Comparing different mitigation measures to enhance freshwater mussel and salmon populations

●MCDA provided a framework and a roadmap for the project.

●Stakeholder steering group (8 persons) actively participated from the beginning of the project ○ 10 meetings and two

workshops

●Value-focused thinking was used in the structuring phase.

●12 face-to-face interviews were carried out with Web-HIPRE.

●Project lasted 8 months.

10

●The levels of integration and interaction have a crucial impact on the quality and effectiveness of the MCDA process and its outcomes.○ Acceptability of the process and outcome improves

●The pros of integrated and interactive process:

The benefits of integration and interaction

11

20.

04.

23T

ane

li D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, SY

KE

12

●People have difficulties in assigning consistent and unbiased weights.

○ Splitting bias and range effect ○ Cognitively demanding task to give weights to the uppermost level

criteria

●Close interaction between the analyst and the participant in the weight elicitation is necessary.

●The analyst can detect possible misunderstandings, inconsistencies, and biases in participants' answers.

●More carefully answers in the presence of the facilitator than independently.

Improved consistency

Enhanced learning

20.

04.

23T

ane

li D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, SY

KE

13

●Value-based and structured approach creates favourable conditions for learning

○ Mutual trust and understanding ”Use of MCDA softened my rigid opinions”

●DAIs inspire learning and understanding in a different manner than traditional meetings and workshops.

○ “Learning by analysing” approach

○ Immediate feedback

○ Iterative approach• Opportunity to modify the weights

Improved trust towards the

results

20.

04.

23T

ane

li D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, SY

KE

14

●Due to the interactive use….○ People see how their answers are used as input

values for the analysis and also how they affect the outcome.

○ It is possible to ensure that the participants have a sufficient understanding of the MCDA model.

○ The risk that people are feeling being manipulated by a "black-box" methodology reduces.

=> Stakeholders’ trust toward the model, results and the whole planning process increases.

Improved fairness and transparency

20.

04.

23T

ane

li D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, SY

KE

15

●The personal decision analysis interview is a good way to provide each participant an opportunity to express her opinions and to get one's opinion equally documented.

●DAIs may have positive impacts on the perception of the fairness of the planning processes.

●DAIs signal that the problem owner had a genuine aspiration to identify and balance different interests and objectives.

Sustained interest of

participants on the process

20.

04.

23T

ane

li D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, SY

KE

16

●In the projects lasting several years it is a big challenge to keep participants active and committed.

●The integrated and interactive use of the MCDA helps in realizing meaningful and effective stakeholder processes.

●MCDA has a very good image in water resources planning

○ ”Soft” participatory approach and successful projects

●Strong support in ministries and SYKE’s management

○ Implementation of EU Floods Directive and Water Framework Directive○ New arenas: Improving EIA and SEA by adopting good practices and

tools of MCDA (EU Life+ application)

●Gap between MCDA’s potential and its current use

○ Great need for integrated and participatory approaches in environmental planning and management

○ Lack of MCDA experts

●Integrating MCDA into the planning process is not an easy goal but worth of striving

○ Easiest when the analyst acts also as the project manager.

Concluding remarks 2

0.0

4.23

Ta

neli

Duu

nari-

Työ

ntek

ijäin

en, S

YK

E

17

THANK YOU!

20.

04.

23T

ane

li D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, SY

KE

18

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

• Marttunen, M. and Hämäläinen, R.P. 2008. Decision analysis interviews in supporting collaborative management of a large regulated water course. Environmental Management 42 (6): 1026-1042. • Hämäläinen, R.P, Mustajoki, J. and Marttunen, M. 2010. Web -based Decision Support: Creating a culture of applying multi-criteria decision analysis and web supported participation in environmental decision making. In Rios Insua, D. and French, S. (eds): e-Democracy. A Group Decision and Negotiation Perspective. 2010. XII, 364 p.

Raimo