Multi Criteria Analysis Case Study

  • Ahmed, T. R. N., Rao, K. G., & Murthy, J. S. R. (2000). GIS based fuzzy membership model for cropland suitability analysis. Agricultural Systems, 63, 75–95. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(99)00036-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Albini, F. A. (1976). Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. Gen.Tech.Rep.INT.30 (92 p). Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar

  • Allgower, B., Carlson, J. D., & Wagtendonk, J. W. V. (2003). Introduction to fire danger rating and remote sensing—will remote sensing enhance wildland fire danger rating? In E. Chuvieco (Eds.), Wild land fire danger estimation and mapping. The role of remote sensing data. New Jersey: World Scientific.Google Scholar

  • Andreae, M. O., & Merlet, P. (2001). Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 15, 955–966. doi:10.1029/2000GB001382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Bellman, R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1970). Decision making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science, 17, 141–164. doi:10.1287/mnsc.17.4.B141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Beven, K., & Kirby, M. J. (1979). A physically based variable contributing area model of basin Hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24, 303–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Bhatt, B. P., & Todaria, N. P. (1992). Fuel wood characteristics of some Indian mountain species. Forest Ecology and Management, 47, 363–366. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(92)90285-H.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Bonazountas, M., Kallidromitou, D., Kassomenos, P. A., & Passas, N. (2005). Fire risk analysis. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 11, 617–626. doi:10.1080/10807030590949717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Brauer, M. (1999). Health impacts of biomass air pollution. In K. T. Goh, D. Schwela, J. G. Goldammar, & O. Simpson (Eds.), Health guidelines for vegetation fire events—background papers (pp. 189–254). Singapore: WHO.Google Scholar

  • Burrough, P. A., MacMillan, R. A., & Deursen, W. (1992). Fuzzy classification methods for determining land suitability from soil profile observations. Journal of Soil Science, 43, 193–210. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.1992.tb00129.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Canadian Forest Service (1997). A wildfire threat rating system for the MacGregor Model Forest. Fianl Report MMF Practices-3015, Canada.Google Scholar

  • Charnpratheep, K., Zhou, O., & Garner, B. (1997). Preliminary landfill site screening using fuzzy geographical information systems. Waste Management & Research, 15, 197–215.Google Scholar

  • Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Chuvieco, E., & Congalton, R. G. (1989). Application of remote sensing and geographic information systems to forest fire hazard mapping. Remote Sensing of Environment, 29, 147–159. doi:10.1016/0034-4257(89)90023-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Chuvieco, E., Allgower, B., & Salas, J. (2003a). Integration of physical and human factors in fire danger assessment. In E. Chuvieco (Ed.), Wild land fire danger estimation and mapping. The role of remote sensing data. New Jersey: World Scientific.Google Scholar

  • Chuvieco, E., Agaudo, I., Cocero, D., & Riano, D. (2003b). Design of an empirical index to estimate fuel moisture content from NOAA-AVHRR analysis in forest fire danger studies. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24, 1621–1637. doi:10.1080/01431160210144660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Covington, W. W., & Moore, M. M. (1994). South-western ponderosa pine forest structure: Changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry, 92, 39–47.Google Scholar

  • D’Ercole, C., Groves, D. I., & Knox-Robinson, M. (2000). Using fuzzy logic in a GIS environment to enhance conceptually based prospectivity analysis of Mississipi Valley-Type mineralization. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 47, 913–927. doi:10.1046/j.1440-0952.2000.00821.x.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, B. (2005). Groundwater vulnerability mapping: A GIS and fuzzy rule based integrated tool. Applied Geography (Sevenoaks, England), 25, 327–347. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2005.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Dubois, D., & Prade, M. (1979). Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Eastman, J. R., & Jiang, H. (1995). Fuzzy measures in multicriteria evaluation. In Proceedings, second international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural resources and environmental studies, May 21–23 (pp. 527–534). Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar

  • Eastman, J. R., Jin, W., Kyem, P. A. K., & Toledano, J. (1995). Raster procedures for multi-criteria/ multi-objective decisions. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 61, 539–547.Google Scholar

  • FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (1986). Wild land fire management terminology. Report number 70.FAO Forestry Paper, Roma.M-99. ISBN 92-5-0024207.Google Scholar

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1967). Additive utilities with incomplete product set: Applications to priorities and assignments. Baltimore, MD, USA: Operations research society of America (ORSA).Google Scholar

  • Giupponi, C., Mysiak, J., Fassio, A., & Cogan, V. (2004). MULINODSS: A computer tool for sustainable use of water resources at the catchment scale. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 64, 13–24. doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2003.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Goldammer, J. G. (1999). Forests on fire. Science, 284, 1782–1783. doi:10.1126/science.284.5421.1782a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Goncalves, Z. J., & Lourenco, L. (1990). Meteorological index of forest fire risk in the Portuguese mainland territory. In Proceedings of the international conference on forest fire research (B07, pp. 1–14). Coimbra.Google Scholar

  • Gregoire, J. M., Tansey, K., & Silva, J. M. N. (2003). The GBA, 2000 initiative: Developing a global burned area database from SPOT-Vegetation imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24, 1369–1376. doi:10.1080/0143116021000044850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Hardy, C. C., Ottmar, R. D., Peterson, J. L., Core, J. E., & Seamon, P. (Eds.) (2001). Smoke management guide for prescribed and wild land fire: 2001 edition PMS 964 420-2. NFES 1279. Boise, ID: National Wildfire Coordination Group (226 p).Google Scholar

  • Hearn, P., Jr., Hare, T., Schruben, P., Sherrill, D., LaMar, C., & Tsushima, P. (2001). Global GIS database: digital atlas of South Asia. US: Geological Survey. Digital Data Series DDS-62-C.Google Scholar

  • Hernandez-Leal, P. A., Arbelo, M., & Gonzalez-Calvo, A. (2006). Fire risk assessment using satellite data. Advances in Space Research, 37, 741–746. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2004.12.053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Heywood, I., Oliver, J., & Tomlinson, S. (1995). Building an exploratory multi-criteria modeling environment for spatial decision support. In P. Fisher (Ed.), Innovations in GIS 2 (pp. 127–136). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

  • Hill, M. J., Braaten, R., Veitch, S. M., Lees, B. G., & Sharma, S. (2005). Multi-criteria decision analysis in spatial decision support: The ASSESS analytic hierarchy process and the role of quantitative methods and spatially explicit analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20, 955–976. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.04.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Janssen, R., & Herwijnen van, M. (1994). DEFINITE. A system to support decisions on a FINITE set of alternatives. User Manual (219 pp). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

  • Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., & Dogan, I. (2003). Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection. Information Sciences, 157, 135–153. doi:10.1016/S0020-0255(03)00183-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Kangas, J., Store, R., Leskinen, P., & Mehta"talo, L. (2000). Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilizing advanced decision-support tools. Forest Ecology and Management, 132, 157–171. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00221-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Karacapilidis, N., & Pappis, C. (2000). Computer supported collaborative argumentation and fuzzy similarity measures in multiple-criteria decision making. Computers & Operations Research, 27, 653–671. doi:10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00111-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Kazana, V., Fawcett, R. H., & Mutch, W. E. S. (2003). A decision support modelling framework for multiple use forest management: The Queen Elizabeth Forest case study in Scotland. European Journal of Operational Research, 148, 102–115. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00348-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Kushla, J. D., & Ripple, W. J. (1997). The role of terrain in a fire mosaic of a temperate coniferous forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 95, 97–107. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(97)82929-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Lark, R. M., & Bolam, H. C. (1997). Uncertainty in prediction and interpretation of spatially variable data on soils. Geoderma, 77, 263–282. doi:10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00025-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Lentile, L. B., Holden, Z. A., Smith, A. M. S., Falkowski, M. J., Hudak, A. T., Morgan, P., et al. (2006). Remote sensing techniques to assess active fire characteristics and post-fire effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 15, 319–345. doi:10.1071/WF05097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Leung, L. C., & Cao, D. (2001). On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision making problem using AHP and Sinarchy. 2001. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(1), 39–49. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00111-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Malczewski, J. (2002). Fuzzy screening for land suitability analysis. Geographical and Environmental Modelling, 6, 27–39. doi:10.1080/13615930220127279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Malins, D., & Metternicht, G. (2006). Assessing the spatial extent of dryland salinity through fuzzy modeling. Ecological Modelling, 193, 387–411. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.08.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Maselli, F., Romanelli, S., Bottai, L., & Zipoli, G. (2003). Use of NOAA-AVHRR NDVI images for the estimation of dynamic fire risk in Mediterranean areas. Remote Sensing of Environment, 86, 187–197. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00099-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Mazzetto, F., & Bonera, R. (2003). MEACROS: A tool for multi-criteria evaluation of alternative cropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 18, 379–387. doi:10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00127-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Merril, D. F., & Alexander, M. E. (Eds.). (1987). Glossary of forest fire management terms (4th ed.). Ottawa, Ontario: National Research Council of Canada. Canadian Committee on Forest Fire management. Publication NRCC No.26516.Google Scholar

  • Mitra, B., Scott, H. D., Dixonand, J. C., & McKimmey, J. M. (1998). Applications of fuzzy logic to the prediction of soil erosion in a large watershed. Geoderma, 86, 183–209. doi:10.1016/S0016-7061(98)00050-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Moore, I. D., Grayson, R. B., & Ladson, A. R. (1991). Terrain based catchment partitioning and runoff prediction using vector elevation data. Water Resources Research, 27, 1177–1191. doi:10.1029/91WR00090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Morgan, P., Hardy, C. C., Swetnam, T., Rollins, M. G., & Long, L. G. (2001). Mapping fire regimes across time and space: Understanding coarse and fine-scale fire patterns. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 10, 329–342. doi:10.1071/WF01032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Nadeau, L. B., & Englefield, P. (2006). Fine-resolution mapping of wildfire fuel types for Canada: Fuzzy logic modeling for an Alberta pilot area. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 120, 127–152. doi:10.1007/s10661-005-9053-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Opperhuizen, A., & Hutzinger, D. (1982). Multi-criteria analysis and risk assessment. Chemosphere, 11, 675–678. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(82)90178-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Perry, D. A. (1998). The scientific basis of forestry. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 435–466. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Pomerol, J. C., & Barba-Romero, S. (2000). Multicriterion decision in management: Principles and management. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

  • Ramanathan, R. (2001). A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 27–35. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Rashed, T., & Weeks, J. (2003). Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multi-criteria analysis of urban areas. International Journal of GIS, 17, 547–576.Google Scholar

  • Ren, F. (1997). A training model for GIS application in land resource allocation. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 52, 261–265. doi:10.1016/S0924-2716(97)00021-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Robinson, V. (2003). A perspective on the fundamentals of Fuzzy sets and their use in geographic information systems. Transactions in GIS, 7, 3–30. doi:10.1111/1467-9671.00127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Rothermel, R. C. (1983). How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and Range fires (40 p). Gen.Tech.Rep.INT-143. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar

  • Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision, 31, 49–73. doi:10.1007/BF00134132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting and resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

  • Saaty, T. L. (1994). Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 426–447. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)90222-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburg: RWS Publications.Google Scholar

  • Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (1993). Experiments on rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17, 13–18. doi:10.1016/0895-7177(93)90171-T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Sadiq, R., & Husain, T. (2005). A fuzzy-based methodology for aggregative environmental risk assessment: A case study of drilling waste. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20, 33–46. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Sasikala, K. R., & Petrou, M. (2001). Generalized fuzzy aggregation in estimating the risk of desertification of a burned forest. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118, 121–137. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00064-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Sicat, R. S., Carranza, E. J. M., & Nidumolu, U. B. (2005). Fuzzy modeling of farmer’s knowledge for land suitability classification. Agricultural Systems, 83, 49–95. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2004.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Stolle, F., & Lambin, E. F. (2003). Interprovincial and interannual differences in the causes of land-use fires in Sumatra, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 30(4), 375–387. doi:10.1017/S0376892903000390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Tangestani, M. H. (2004). Landslide susceptibility mapping using the fuzzy gamma approach in a GIS, Kakan catchment area, southwest Iran. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 51, 439–450. doi:10.1111/j.1400-0952.2004.01068.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Tansey, K., Gregoire, J. M., Binaghi, L. E., et al. (2004). A global inventory of burned areas at 1 km resolution for the year 2000 derived from SPOT vegetation data. Climatic Change, 67, 345–377. doi:10.1007/s10584-004-2800-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Taylor, S. W., & Alexander, M. E. (2006). Science, technology, and human factors in fire danger rating: The Canadian experience. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 15, 121–135. doi:10.1071/WF05021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Triantaphyllou, E., & Lin, C. T. (1996). Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multi-attribute decision making methods. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 14, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Wagner, C. E. (1993). Prediction of crown fire behavior in two stands of Jack Pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 18, 818–820.Google Scholar

  • Veitch, S. M., & Bowyer, J. K. (1996). ASSESS: A system for selecting suitable sites. In S. Morain, & S. Lopez Baros (Eds.), Raster imagery in geographic information systems (pp. 495). Santa Fe: One Word Press.Google Scholar

  • Wang, Y. M., Elhag, T. M. S., & Hau, Z. S. (2006). A modified fuzzy logarithmic least squares method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(23), 3055–3071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Wu, C. R., Lin, C. T., & Chen, H. C. (2007). Optimal selection of location for Taiwanese hospitals to ensure a competitive advantage by using the analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis. Building and Environment, 42, 1431–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Yanar, T. A., & Akyurek, A. (2006). The enhancement of the cell-based GIS analyses with fuzzy processing capabilities. Information Sciences, 176, 1067–1085. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2005.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Yen, J. (1999). Fuzzy logic-a modern perspective. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 11, 153–165. doi:10.1109/69.755624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Ying, M. W., Liu, J., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2008). An integrated AHP-DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 54(3), 513–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Content, 8, 338–356. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.CrossRef

  • Features

    • Addresses emerging management needs in environmental projects
    • Provides helpful guidance on cutting-edge decision making methodologies
    • Builds on real case studies from recent environmental management experience
    • Includes exercises and questions to encourage discussion
    • Offers DECERNS software and modeling examples available for download at www.crcpress.com

    Summary

    Environmental management is often complicated and multidisciplinary and the issues that arise can be difficult to solve analytically. Often, decision makers take ad hoc approaches, which may result in the ignoring of important stakeholder opinions or decision criteria. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) provides a framework by which these types of decisions can be made but, despite being used effectively in many fields, it is not often used in environmental management.

    Given the novelty and inherent applicability of this decision making framework to the environmental field, there is a need for more teaching tools for MCDA. In particular, there is a need for a case study based approach to help readers navigate the many MCDA methods and decide how to apply them to a specific case.

    Through a collection of case studies, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Environmental Applications and Case Studies gives readers the tools to apply cutting-edge MCDA methods to their own environmental projects. It offers an overview of the types of MCDA available and a conceptual framework of how it is applied, with the focus on its applicability for environmental science.

    Taking an in-depth look at the case of sediment management, the book introduces different steps of MCDA processes—from problem formulation and model development to criteria weighing and alternative scoring. The authors then explore the case using various MCDA methods, which allows readers to see clearly how the methodologies differ and gain a better understanding of the mechanistic operation of the analysis.

    A series of case studies in nanotechnology collectively demonstrate the application of MCDA in situations of high variability and uncertainty that require the integration of technical information and expert judgment—an area where MCDA clearly shines. The authors describe multiple decisions—from risk classification to value of information analysis to the assessment of potential research and funding investments—that readers may face in dealing with emerging environmental threats.

    Demonstrating the broad applicability of MCDA methods for different types of cases, the book presents a series of case studies ranging from oyster restoration to oil spill response. In conjunction with these cases, the book also provides corresponding decision models that are implemented by the DECERNS software and allow users to examine the same case using multiple MCDA tools. The DECERNS software and models are available for download at www.crcpress.com.

    Intended both as a research and teaching tool, this book inspires creative thinking when applying MCDA to complicated environmental issues.

    Table of Contents

    Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Applications
    Introduction to Multi-Criteria Methods
    Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Sciences: Applications and Trends

    MCDA Methods in Depth: Sediment Management
    Problem Formulation and MCDA Model
    Weighting and Scoring
    MAUT
    Outranking
    Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

    MCDA Application in Depth: Nanomaterials
    Nanomaterials: Background and Environmental Challenges
    Risk-Based Classification of Nanomaterials
    Nanomaterials Risk in Perspective: Bringing Together Technical Judgment and Stakeholder Preference
    Insurability of Nanotechnology
    Selecting Optimal Nanomanufacturing Technology
    Value of Information Analysis for Nanomanufacturing

    MCDA Application Case Studies
    Setting Dredging Windows for Sensitive Fish Species
    Management of Harmful Algal Blooms
    Restoring Oysters in Chesapeake Bay
    Performance Metrics for Oil Spills Response

    Appendix: DECERNS: Software Guide

    Index

    Author(s) Bio

    Dr. Igor Linkov is a Research Scientist and Risk and Decision Science Focus Area Lead with the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and Adjunct Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Linkov has managed multiple ecological and human health risk assessments and risk management projects, including application of state-of-the-science modeling and software tools to highly complex sites—among them the Hudson River, Dow Midland, Natick Soldier Systems Command, and Elizabeth Mine—and projects such as restoration and remediation planning, nanotechnology, and risk-based prioritization of engineering projects. He has published widely on environmental policy, environmental modeling, and risk analysis, including twelve books and over 150 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters. Dr. Linkov has organized more than 40 national and international conferences and continuing education workshops on risk assessment, decision analysis, environmental security, risk communication, nanotechnology, and modeling. The Governor of Massachusetts has appointed Dr. Linkov to serve as a Scientific Advisor to the Toxic Use Reduction Institute. Dr. Linkov is also the recipient of the 2005 SRA Chauncey Starr Award for his exceptional contribution to risk analysis and a 2010 US Army Achievement Medal for Civilian Service.

    Emily Moberg is a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology studying Biological Oceanography. Her undergraduate work was in Environmental Engineering and her interests lie in environmental processes and ecology. She has done work at the University of Pennsylvania, with the US Army Corps of Engineers, and at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Her work with the US Army Corps of Engineers has allowed her to focus more on risk analysis and the management of environmental concerns, which she hopes to apply later in her career.

    Reviews

    Currently, the most important trend in environmental assessment is the increasing emphasis on informing the decision-making process. With this book, Igor Linkov and Emily Moberg provide a useful introduction to the most versatile tool for linking estimates of risks or impacts with the many other considerations that inform environmental management decisions.
    —Glenn Suter, Science Advisor, National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA

    Where the U.S. government is in need of effective and reliable environmental tools to guide leadership, Linkov and Moberg’s MCDA is a common sense approach to balance the science, social, behavior, and economic factors associated in making complex decisions—a true systems approach seeking to find an acceptable and sustainable state of equilibrium.
    —Colonel Dionysios Anninos, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chief of Staff

    … an excellent resource for researchers, practitioners, teachers and students interested in the use of formal decision analysis methods in environmental policy. The case study format allows the reader to grapple with the different methods and the associated software in context, the explanations are clear but sophisticated, and the discussion questions are crafted to encourage real student engagement …
    —Timothy F. Malloy, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

    The book is a valuable complementary addition to textbooks on the topic as it provides a very easy to follow presentation of the main methods. The approach is based on working through case studies using the DECERNS software. I am sure that practitioners will find this book a very helpful first step into the practice of the methodology.
    —Raimo P. Hämäläinen, Professor, Aalto University, Finland

    I like how it gives a non-partisan treatment of all the different techniques, how it demonstrates them all on comparable problems so that it is easy for the reader to keep straight what is different and what is similar, and that the case problems themselves are realistic so it is clear how one might use this in practice.
    —Jeffrey M. Keisler, President Elect, INFORMS Decision Analysis Society and Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston

    In our society, environment is a ‘common good’. That is why stakeholders and citizens seek for more transparency and accountability within decision processes. The authors have offered us a set of practical experiences and have contributed to popularize multi-criteria decision analysis methods and tools by respecting the difficult equilibrium between conceptual/technical precisions and operational validation. This book will be a precious document for practitioners, regulators, researchers and students.
    —Myriam Merad, PhD, National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risk (INERIS), France

    This book describes methods and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis. But it goes beyond models and theory to provide case studies and discussions of multi-criteria decision analysis applied in specific—and varying—circumstances. The book provides tools. It also inspires creative thought by offering examples that can be a springboard for policy makers and other decision makers to think about its relevance and utility in the many circumstances they face.
    —From the Foreword by Lynn Scarlett, Former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Visiting Scholar, Resources for the Future

    Downloads/Updates

    ResourceUpdatedDescriptionInstructions
    K12453.zipFebruary 21, 2013Additional materials

    0 thoughts on “Multi Criteria Analysis Case Study

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *