Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: Aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS

被引:17
作者
Zheng, Jun [1 ]
Lienert, Judit [1 ]
机构
[1] Eawag, Swiss Fed Inst Aquat Sci & Technol, POB 611, CH-8600 Dubendorf, Switzerland
基金
瑞士国家科学基金会;
关键词
Multiple criteria analysis; Behavioral OR; Preference elicitation; OR in environment and climate change; Stakeholder interview; BEHAVIORAL OPERATIONAL-RESEARCH; MULTIPLE CRITERIA RANKING; ADDITIVE VALUE-FUNCTIONS; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; TEMPORAL STABILITY; ORDINAL REGRESSION; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; HIERARCHY PROCESS; UTILITY-FUNCTIONS; MULTICRITERIA;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.018
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
We used two types of preference elicitation methods based on multi-attribute value theory (MAW) for a wastewater infrastructure decision in Switzerland. We aimed to register the implementation impacts of two preference elicitation philosophies (aggregation, disaggregation) in a large, real-world case and give guidance on these elicitation approaches for practitioners. We conducted two series of face-to-face interviews with the same ten. The first interview set used direct aggregation preference elicitation methods, which decomposed an additive value model into the elicitation of weights (SMART/SWING-variant) and marginal value functions (bi-section method). In the second interview series, indirect disaggregation was used, based on UTA(GMS). The weights and marginal value functions for 19 objectives were later simultaneously inferred with linear programming from pairwise comparisons of hypothetical alternatives. One aim was to design the UTA(GMS) comparisons for many objectives. Further, we aimed to identify differences and commonalities of the two methods concerning the elicited preferences, the MAW evaluation results of six real-world wastewater infrastructure alternatives, and the stakeholders' and analysts' feedbacks. Similar best alternatives indicate convergence of the two elicitation methods. This demonstrates the applicability of the UTAGMS elicitation procedure to a very complex decision problem. However, the two elicitation methods were perceived differently by the respondents and required different effort from the analysts. For individual stakeholders, preferences were sometimes rather different between the interviews, which could be largely explained by the constructive nature of preference formation. This indicates the importance of supporting stakeholder learning in the application of MCDA. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:273 / 287
页数:15
相关论文
共 97 条
  • [21] Conflict and loss aversion in multiattribute choice: The effects of trade-off size and reference dependence on decision difficulty
    Chatterjee, S
    Heath, TB
    [J]. ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1996, 67 (02) : 144 - 155
  • [22] Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment
    Cinelli, Marco
    Coles, Stuart R.
    Kirwan, Kerry
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2014, 46 : 138 - 148
  • [23] Heuristics for prioritizing pair-wise elicitation questions with additive multi-attribute value models
    Ciomek, Krzysztof
    Kadzinski, Milosz
    Tervonen, Tommi
    [J]. OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2017, 71 : 27 - 45
  • [24] Heuristics for selecting pair-wise elicitation questions in multiple criteria choice problems
    Ciomek, Krzysztof
    Kadzinski, Milosz
    Tervonen, Tommi
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2017, 262 (02) : 693 - 707
  • [25] Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process in Robust Ordinal Regression
    Corrente, Salvatore
    Greco, Salvatore
    Slowinski, Roman
    [J]. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, 2012, 53 (03) : 660 - 674
  • [26] When conflict induces the expression of incomplete preferences
    Deparis, Stephane
    Mousseau, Vincent
    Oeztuerk, Meltem
    Pallier, Christophe
    Huron, Caroline
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2012, 221 (03) : 593 - 602
  • [27] The use of a preference disaggregation method in energy analysis and policy making
    Diakoulaki, D
    Zopounidis, C
    Mavrotas, G
    Doumpos, M
    [J]. ENERGY, 1999, 24 (02) : 157 - 166
  • [28] Multicriteria preference disaggregation for classification problems with an application to global investing risk
    Doumpos, M
    Zanakis, SH
    Zopounidis, C
    [J]. DECISION SCIENCES, 2001, 32 (02) : 333 - 385
  • [29] Development of a Robust Multicriteria Classification Model for Monitoring the Postoperative Behaviour of Heart Patients
    Doumpos, Michael
    Xidonas, Panagiotis
    Xidonas, Sotirios
    Siskos, Yannis
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS, 2016, 23 (1-2) : 15 - 27
  • [30] Preference disaggregation and statistical learning for multicriteria decision support: A review
    Doumpos, Michael
    Zopounidis, Constantin
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2011, 209 (03) : 203 - 214