Four Common Simplifications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis do not hold for River Rehabilitation

被引:30
作者
Langhans, Simone D. [1 ,2 ]
Lienert, Judit [1 ]
机构
[1] Swiss Fed Inst Aquat Sci & Technol, Eawag, Duebendorf, Switzerland
[2] Leibniz Inst Freshwater Ecol & Inland Fisheries I, Berlin, Germany
来源
PLOS ONE | 2016年 / 11卷 / 03期
关键词
EXPERT KNOWLEDGE; UTILITY-THEORY; MANAGEMENT; ELICITATION; UNCERTAINTY; FRAMEWORK; ECOLOGY; SUPPORT; SYSTEM; BIASES;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0150695
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
River rehabilitation aims at alleviating negative effects of human impacts such as loss of biodiversity and reduction of ecosystem services. Such interventions entail difficult trade-offs between different ecological and often socio-economic objectives. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a very suitable approach that helps assessing the current ecological state and prioritizing river rehabilitation measures in a standardized way, based on stakeholder or expert preferences. Applications of MCDA in river rehabilitation projects are often simplified, i.e. using a limited number of objectives and indicators, assuming linear value functions, aggregating individual indicator assessments additively, and/or assuming risk neutrality of experts. Here, we demonstrate an implementation of MCDA expert preference assessments to river rehabilitation and provide ample material for other applications. To test whether the above simplifications reflect common expert opinion, we carried out very detailed interviews with five river ecologists and a hydraulic engineer. We defined essential objectives and measurable quality indicators (attributes), elicited the experts' preferences for objectives on a standardized scale (value functions) and their risk attitude, and identified suitable aggregation methods. The experts recommended an extensive objectives hierarchy including between 54 and 93 essential objectives and between 37 to 61 essential attributes. For 81% of these, they defined non-linear value functions and in 76% recommended multiplicative aggregation. The experts were risk averse or risk prone (but never risk neutral), depending on the current ecological state of the river, and the experts' personal importance of objectives. We conclude that the four commonly applied simplifications clearly do not reflect the opinion of river rehabilitation experts. The optimal level of model complexity, however, remains highly case-study specific depending on data and resource availability, the context, and the complexity of the decision problem.
引用
收藏
页数:27
相关论文
共 72 条
[1]   Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory [J].
Ananda, J ;
Herath, G .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2005, 55 (03) :408-419
[2]   A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning [J].
Ananda, Jayanath ;
Herath, Gamini .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2009, 68 (10) :2535-2548
[3]  
[Anonymous], GEW BUND DEUTSCHL UB
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2011, EXP EL TASK FORC WHI
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2008, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PA
[6]  
[Anonymous], GEW BUND DEUTSCHL VE
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2011, MULTICRITERIA DECISI
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2001, Making hard decisions with decision tools
[9]   A route to more tractable expert advice [J].
Aspinall, Willy .
NATURE, 2010, 463 (7279) :294-295
[10]  
Belton Valerie., 2003, MULTIPLE CRITERIA DE