IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v29y2018ipap13-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-monetary valuation using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Sensitivity of additive aggregation methods to scaling and compensation assumptions

Author

Listed:
  • Martin, D.M.
  • Mazzotta, M.

Abstract

Analytical methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) support the non-monetary valuation of ecosystem services for environmental decision making. Many published case studies transform ecosystem service outcomes into a common metric and aggregate the outcomes to set land use planning and environmental management priorities. Analysts and their stakeholder constituents should be cautioned that results may be sensitive to the methods that are chosen to perform the analysis. In this article, we investigate four common additive aggregation methods: global and local multi-attribute scaling, the analytic hierarchy process, and compromise programming. Using a hypothetical example, we explain scaling and compensation assumptions that distinguish the methods. We perform a case study application of the four methods to re-analyze a data set that was recently published in Ecosystem Services and demonstrate how results are sensitive to the methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin, D.M. & Mazzotta, M., 2018. "Non-monetary valuation using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Sensitivity of additive aggregation methods to scaling and compensation assumptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 13-22.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pa:p:13-22
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617303315
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Barton, David N. & Geneletti, Davide & Langemeyer, Johannes & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Marttunen, Mika & Antunes, Paula & Keune, Hans & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 238-249.
    2. Bouyssou, Denis, 1986. "Some remarks on the notion of compensation in MCDM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 150-160, July.
    3. Olander, Lydia & Polasky, Stephen & Kagan, James S. & Johnston, Robert J. & Wainger, Lisa & Saah, David & Maguire, Lynn & Boyd, James & Yoskowitz, David, 2017. "So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 170-182.
    4. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    5. Wam, Hilde Karine & Bunnefeld, Nils & Clarke, Nicholas & Hofstad, Ole, 2016. "Conflicting interests of ecosystem services: Multi-criteria modelling and indirect evaluation of trade-offs between monetary and non-monetary measures," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 280-288.
    6. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    7. Favretto, N. & Stringer, L.C. & Dougill, A.J. & Dallimer, M. & Perkins, J.S. & Reed, M.S. & Atlhopheng, J.R. & Mulale, K., 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to identify dryland ecosystem service trade-offs under different rangeland land uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 142-151.
    8. Langemeyer, Johannes & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Scheuer, Sebastian & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2016. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-56.
    9. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    10. Various, 1973. "Conference Programs," NBER Chapters, in: The New Realities of the Business Cycle, pages 126-131, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Kremer, Peleg & Hamstead, Zoé A. & McPhearson, Timon, 2016. "The value of urban ecosystem services in New York City: A spatially explicit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 57-68.
    12. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.
    13. Vogdrup-Schmidt, Mathias & Strange, Niels & Olsen, Søren B. & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2017. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem service provision in nature networks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 165-173.
    14. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Fatima‐Zohra Younsi & Salem Chakhar & Alessio Ishizaka & Djamila Hamdadou & Omar Boussaid, 2020. "A Dominance‐Based Rough Set Approach for an Enhanced Assessment of Seasonal Influenza Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1323-1341, July.
    3. Mónica de Castro Pardo & Pascual Fernández Martínez & José Manuel Guaita Martínez & José María Martín Martín, 2020. "Modelling Natural Capital: A Proposal for a Mixed Multi-criteria Approach to Assign Management Priorities to Ecosystem Services," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 14(1), March.
    4. Bojan Srđević & Zorica Srđević & Milica Ilić & Senka Ždero, 2021. "Group model for evaluating the importance of Ramsar sites in Vojvodina Province of Serbia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10892-10909, July.
    5. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. Dastan Bamwesigye & Petra Hlavackova & Andrea Sujova & Jitka Fialova & Petr Kupec, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for Forest Existence Value and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Charlène Kermagoret & Jérôme Dupras, 2018. "Coupling spatial analysis and economic valuation of ecosystem services to inform the management of an UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    8. David O’Byrne, 2022. "Restoring human freedoms: from utilitarianism to a capability approach to wetland restoration in Louisiana’s coastal master plan," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 298-310, June.
    9. Hongmi Koo & Janina Kleemann & Christine Fürst, 2020. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Land-Use Modeling to Assess the Effects of Future Land-Use Strategies in Northern Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, October.
    10. Riley, David & Schaafsma, Marije & Marin-Moreno, Héctor & Minshull, Tim A., 2020. "A social, environmental and economic evaluation protocol for potential gas hydrate exploitation projects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    11. Prasad, Sanjeev K. & Mangaraj, B.K., 2022. "A multi-objective competitive-design framework for fuel procurement planning in coal-fired power plants for sustainable operations," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    12. Martin, D.M. & Mazzotta, M., 2018. "Non-monetary valuation using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Using a strength-of-evidence approach to inform choices among alternatives," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 124-133.
    13. Bryant, Benjamin P. & Borsuk, Mark E. & Hamel, Perrine & Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & Schulp, C.J.E. & Willcock, Simon, 2018. "Transparent and feasible uncertainty assessment adds value to applied ecosystem services modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 103-109.
    14. Alicja Krzemień & Juan José Álvarez Fernández & Pedro Riesgo Fernández & Gregorio Fidalgo Valverde & Silverio Garcia-Cortes, 2022. "Valuation of Ecosystem Services Based on EU Carbon Allowances—Optimal Recovery for a Coal Mining Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-21, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Folkersen, Maja Vinde, 2018. "Ecosystem valuation: Changing discourse in a time of climate change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 1-12.
    3. Martin, D.M. & Mazzotta, M., 2018. "Non-monetary valuation using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Using a strength-of-evidence approach to inform choices among alternatives," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 124-133.
    4. Joaquín Pérez, José L. Jimeno, Ethel Mokotoff, 2001. "Another potential strong shortcoming of AHP," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 8/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá., revised 01 Jun 2002.
    5. Kevin Kam Fung Yuen, 2022. "Decision models for information systems planning using primitive cognitive network process: comparisons with analytic hierarchy process," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1759-1785, July.
    6. Tomasz Witold Trojanowski & Pawel Tadeusz Kazibudzki, 2021. "Prospects and Constraints of Sustainable Marketing Mix Development for Poland’s High-Energy Consumer Goods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Devesh Kumar & Gunjan Soni & Rohit Joshi & Vipul Jain & Amrik Sohal, 2022. "Modelling supply chain viability during COVID-19 disruption: A case of an Indian automobile manufacturing supply chain," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1224-1240, December.
    8. Pawel Tadeusz Kazibudzki & Tomasz Witold Trojanowski, 2020. "Examination of marketing mix performance in relation to sustainable development of the Poland’s confectionery industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    9. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    10. Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2010. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 699-711, April.
    11. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara, 2018. "Improving payments for ecosystem services (PES) outcomes through the use of Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and the software OPTamos," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 47-55.
    13. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    14. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    15. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    16. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    17. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    18. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    19. Benedetto Barabino & Nicola Aldo Cabras & Claudio Conversano & Alessandro Olivo, 2020. "An Integrated Approach to Select Key Quality Indicators in Transit Services," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 1045-1080, June.
    20. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pa:p:13-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.