IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v10y2001i4d10.1023_a1011207207809.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management

Author

Listed:
  • Raimo Hämäläinen

    (Helsinki University of Technology)

  • Eero Kettunen

    (Helsinki University of Technology)

  • Mika Marttunen

    (Finnish Environment Institute)

  • Harri Ehtamo

    (Helsinki University of Technology)

Abstract

In this paper we describe a framework for multicriteria modeling and support of multi-stakeholder decision processes. We report on its testing in the development of a new water level management policy for a regulated lake-river system in Finland. In the framework the stakeholders are involved in the decision process from the problem structuring stage to the group consensus seeking stage followed by a stage of seeking public acceptance for the policy. The framework aims at creating an evolutionary learning process. In this paper we also focus on the use of a new interactive method for finding and identifying Pareto-optimal alternatives. Role playing experiments with students are used to test the practical applicability of a negotiation support procedure called the method of improving directions. We also describe the preference programming approach for the aggregation of the stakeholder opinions in the final evaluation of alternatives and consensus seeking.

Suggested Citation

  • Raimo Hämäläinen & Eero Kettunen & Mika Marttunen & Harri Ehtamo, 2001. "Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 331-353, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:10:y:2001:i:4:d:10.1023_a:1011207207809
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1011207207809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1011207207809
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1011207207809?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. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    2. Marttunen, Mika & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 551-563, December.
    3. Salo, Ahti A. & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 458-475, May.
    4. Ann Davey & David Olson, 1998. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 55-75, January.
    5. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels, 1992. "Value-Focused Thinking about Strategic Decisions at BC Hydro," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 94-109, December.
    6. Aregai Tecle & Bijaya P. Shrestha & Lucien Duckstein, 1998. "A multiobjective decision support system for multiresource forest management," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 23-40, January.
    7. Gerardine DeSanctis & R. Brent Gallupe, 1987. "A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 589-609, May.
    8. Ahti A. Salo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 1992. "Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1053-1061, December.
    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. van Kouwen, Frank & Dieperink, Carel & Schot, Paul P. & Wassen, Martin J., 2007. "Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders," Natural Resources Management Working Papers 9555, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Alaja, Susanna, 2008. "The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 556-569, December.
    3. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Lahtinen, Tuomas J., 2016. "Path dependence in Operational Research—How the modeling process can influence the results," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 14-20.
    4. Wang, Q. & Poh, K.L., 2014. "A survey of integrated decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 691-702.
    5. Kersten, Gregory E. & Lai, Hsiangchu, 2007. "Satisfiability and completeness of protocols for electronic negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 922-937, July.
    6. Harri Ehtamo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 2001. "Interactive Multiple‐Criteria Methods for Reaching Pareto Optimal Agreements in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 475-491, November.
    7. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    8. Kucukali, Serhat, 2016. "Risk scorecard concept in wind energy projects: An integrated approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 975-987.

    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. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    2. Tom Pape, 2020. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: Concept, measures and application," Papers 2012.13816, arXiv.org.
    3. Salo, Ahti & Punkka, Antti, 2005. "Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 338-356, June.
    4. Pape, Tom, 2017. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: concept, measures and application," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68682, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Hamalainen, Raimo P. & Mantysaari, Juha, 2002. "Dynamic multi-objective heating optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Mustajoki, Jyri & Hamalainen, Raimo P. & Lindstedt, Mats R.K., 2006. "Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 278-292, October.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg & Jim Idefeldt & Aron Larsson, 2007. "Using a Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis: The Case of Nacka Municipality," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 76-90, June.
    10. Sam Park, Kyung & Sang Lee, Kyung & Seong Eum, Yun & Park, Kwangtae, 2001. "Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 557-563, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Conde, Eduardo & de la Paz Rivera Pérez, María, 2010. "A linear optimization problem to derive relative weights using an interval judgement matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(2), pages 537-544, March.
    13. Guo, Min & Yang, Jian-Bo & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Wang, Hongwei, 2007. "Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1294-1312, November.
    14. Ahti Salo & Antti Punkka, 2011. "Ranking Intervals and Dominance Relations for Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 200-214, January.
    15. Mustajoki, Jyri, 2012. "Effects of imprecise weighting in hierarchical preference programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(1), pages 193-201.
    16. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    17. A Mateos & S Ríos-Insua & A Jiménez, 2007. "Dominance, potential optimality and alternative ranking in imprecise multi-attribute decision making," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(3), pages 326-336, March.
    18. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    19. Shuliang Li & Jim Zheng Li, 2009. "A multi‐agent‐based hybrid framework for international marketing planning under uncertainty," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 231-254, July.
    20. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Alaja, Susanna, 2008. "The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 556-569, December.

    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:spr:grdene:v:10:y:2001:i:4:d:10.1023_a:1011207207809. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.