IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i5p1705-d324877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying a Multi-Criteria Project Portfolio Tool in Selecting Energy Peat Production Areas

Author

Listed:
  • Mikko Kurttila

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland)

  • Arto Haara

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland)

  • Artti Juutinen

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-90014 Oulu, Finland)

  • Jouni Karhu

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-90014 Oulu, Finland)

  • Paavo Ojanen

    (Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, FI-00100 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Jouni Pykäläinen

    (Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland)

  • Miia Saarimaa

    (Forestry Centre Finland, FI-90100 Oulu, Finland)

  • Oili Tarvainen

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-90014 Oulu, Finland)

  • Sakari Sarkkola

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Anne Tolvanen

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-90014 Oulu, Finland)

Abstract

This study demonstrates the characteristics of the new generic project portfolio selection tool YODA (“Your Own Decision Aid”). YODA does not include a mathematical aggregation model. Instead, the decision maker’s preferences are defined by the interactive articulation of acceptance thresholds of project-level decision criteria. Transparency and ease of adopting the method in participatory planning are sought using the method’s simple preference input. The characteristics of the YODA tool are introduced by presenting how it has been applied in participatory land use planning in northern Finland in selecting a combination of peat production sites to attain the goals defined at municipal level. In this process, each stakeholder first constructed a project portfolio that best met his or her preferences. In doing this, acceptance thresholds for project-level decision criteria were defined. In total, eight decision criteria were related to economic value, biodiversity, social impacts, and ecosystem services. Subsequently, the portfolios of different stakeholders were combined in line with the principles of robust portfolio modelling. Core projects were accepted by all stakeholders, while exterior projects were not accepted, and borderline projects by some of the stakeholders. Although the land use planning situation at hand was highly sensitive, because it was related to various aspects of sustainability, the use of YODA provided useful results. The first meeting with stakeholders identified 52 out of 99 sites that none of the stakeholders would use for energy peat production, due to their characteristics, whereas, in the second meeting, a smaller stakeholder group found 18 core projects and 26 borderline projects which could be potential areas for energy peat production. We conclude that YODA—as a generic project portfolio tool—can be used in various planning situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikko Kurttila & Arto Haara & Artti Juutinen & Jouni Karhu & Paavo Ojanen & Jouni Pykäläinen & Miia Saarimaa & Oili Tarvainen & Sakari Sarkkola & Anne Tolvanen, 2020. "Applying a Multi-Criteria Project Portfolio Tool in Selecting Energy Peat Production Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:1705-:d:324877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1705/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1705/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Hiltunen, Veikko & Kurttila, Mikko & Leskinen, Pekka & Pasanen, Karri & Pykäläinen, Jouni, 2009. "Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
    3. KARRI PASANEN & MIKKO KURTTILA & JOUNI PYKÄlÄINEN & JYRKI KANGAS & PEKKA LESKINEN, 2005. "Mesta — Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners' Decision-Support Environment For The Evaluation Of Alternative Forest Plans Over The Internet," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 601-620.
    4. Liesiö, Juuso & Mild, Pekka & Salo, Ahti, 2008. "Robust portfolio modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(3), pages 679-695, November.
    5. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijke , 2018. "When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 566-578.
    6. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    7. Juutinen, Artti & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Haara, Arto & Karhu, Jouni & Nieminen, Mika & Minkkinen, Kari & Penttilä, Timo & Laatikainen, Matti & Tolvanen, Anne, 2019. "Trade-offs between economic returns, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in the selection of energy peat production sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.
    9. Liesio, Juuso & Mild, Pekka & Salo, Ahti, 2007. "Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1488-1505, September.
    10. Primmer, Eeva & Furman, Eeva, 2012. "Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 85-92.
    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. Pohl, Erik & Geldermann, Jutta, 2024. "Selection of multi-criteria energy efficiency and emission abatement portfolios in container terminals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 316(1), pages 386-395.
    2. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.

    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. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    2. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    3. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Juutinen, Artti & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Haara, Arto & Karhu, Jouni & Nieminen, Mika & Minkkinen, Kari & Penttilä, Timo & Laatikainen, Matti & Tolvanen, Anne, 2019. "Trade-offs between economic returns, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in the selection of energy peat production sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    6. Vilkkumaa, Eeva & Liesiö, Juuso & Salo, Ahti, 2014. "Optimal strategies for selecting project portfolios using uncertain value estimates," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 772-783.
    7. Panos Xidonas & Haris Doukas & George Mavrotas & Olena Pechak, 2016. "Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 247(2), pages 395-413, December.
    8. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Ali Tlili & Oumaima Khaled & Vincent Mousseau & Wassila Ouerdane, 2023. "Interactive portfolio selection involving multicriteria sorting models," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 1169-1195, June.
    10. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    11. Barbati, Maria & Greco, Salvatore & Kadziński, Miłosz & Słowiński, Roman, 2018. "Optimization of multiple satisfaction levels in portfolio decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 192-204.
    12. Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode & Clemetsen, Morten & Eik, Lars Olav & Faccioni, Georgia & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon & Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Sturaro, Enrico, 2019. "Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    13. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Brunelli, Matteo & Corrente, Salvatore, 2024. "Modeling criteria and project interactions in portfolio decision analysis with the Choquet integral," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    15. Liesiö, Juuso & Andelmin, Juho & Salo, Ahti, 2020. "Efficient allocation of resources to a portfolio of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(2), pages 619-636.
    16. Toppila, Antti & Salo, Ahti, 2017. "Binary decision diagrams for generating and storing non-dominated project portfolios with interval-valued project scores," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 244-254.
    17. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Haikarainen, Soili & Karhu, Jouni & Haara, Arto & Nieminen, Mika & Penttilä, Timo & Nousiainen, 2020. "Cost-effective land-use options of drained peatlands– integrated biophysical-economic modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    18. Liesiö, Juuso & Salo, Ahti, 2012. "Scenario-based portfolio selection of investment projects with incomplete probability and utility information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(1), pages 162-172.
    19. Eyvindson, Kyle & Hujala, Teppo & Kangas, Annika & Kurttila, Mikko, 2012. "Selecting a forest plan among alternatives: Consistency of preferences within decision support frameworks," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 114-122.
    20. Mancuso, A. & Compare, M. & Salo, A. & Zio, E. & Laakso, T., 2016. "Risk-based optimization of pipe inspections in large underground networks with imprecise information," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 228-238.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:1705-:d:324877. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.