Experiences from the interactive use of
MCDA in environmental planning projects
Mika Marttunen
Mikko Dufva
Finnish Environment Institute
Jyri Mustajoki
Tampere University of Technology
Timo P. Karjalainen
Thule Institute, University of Oulu
1
MCDM conference Jyväskylä, June 14th , 2011
Content
● Decision analysis interview (DAI) approach
● What do integration and interaction mean in
MCDA projects?
● What has been the performance of our MCDA
projects in respect of integration and interaction?
● What are the benefits of high level integration and
interaction?
● Concluding remarks
13.4.2015
Development of the DAI approach
● Refers to an MCDA process which is based on personal
interviews with a multi-criteria model
● Developed in the beginning of 1990’s
○ Close co-operation with SYKE and Systems Analysis
Laboratory
● REAL NEED: Water course regulation development projects
○ Conflicting interests and opinions
○ Alternatives with economic, social and ecological impacts
○ Stakeholders’ participation in the planning process
● CHALLENGE: Linking science into practical applications
○ Primary goal in designing processes which are meaningful and
effective in joint solution finding
3
Decision analysis interview approach
FRAMING, ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
STAKEHOLDERS’
OBJECTIVES AND
ALTERNATIVES
Identifying and structuring
objectives and developing
alternatives
Value tree
ALTERNATIVES’ IMPACTS
STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS
Defining attributes, scales
and performance scores
Studying workbook material
and answering the
questionnaire
Impact matrix
Preliminary significance
of the impacts
INTERACTIVE USE OF MCDA SOFTWARE
Discussion of the
responses to the
questionnaire
Modifications to the
value tree and to the
performance scores
Attributes’ weights,
arguments and
consistency-checking
SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Different perspectives and value profiles
Issues of agreement and disagreement
Analysis of the
results
Major MCDA projects
Project
Year
Scope
Tool
Personal DAIs
Oulujärvi
1992
Water course regulation
HIPRE3
Yes, 35
Kokemäenjoki I
1993
Flood risk management
HIPRE3+
Yes, 24
Päijänne
1998
Water course regulation
HIPRE3+
Yes, 20
Pirkanmaa
2002
Water course regulation
Customized model
Yes, 35
Koitere
2005
Water course regulation
Customized model
Value-focused thinking
Yes, 18
Plavinas
2006
Hydro power
Web-HIPRE
No, expert group
Mäntsälä
2006
Lake restoration
EXCEL
No, expert group
Ylä-Lappi
2008
Forest management
Web-HIPRE
Yes, 15
Mustionjoki
2010
River rehabilitation
Web-HIPRE
Value-focused thinking
Yes,12
Iijoki
2011
River rehabilitation
Web-HIPRE
Value-focused thinking
Yes, 25
Keski-Suomi
2011
Peat production
EXCEL
No, expert group
Catermass
Ongoing
Agriculture
Web-HIPRE
Open
Kokemäenjoki II
Ongoing
Flood risk management
Open
Open
Rovaniemi
Ongoing
Flood risk management
Web-HIPRE
Open
Pielinen
Ongoing
Water course regulation
Web-HIPRE
Open 5
Primary objectives of the projects
Project
Systematic
and
transparent
evaluation
of
alternatives
Oulujärvi
Identification of
information
gaps and
uncertainties
Understanding
stakeholders’
preferences
Learning
of participants
Joint
solution
finding
x
x
x
Kokemäenjoki I
x
x
x
Päijänne
x
x
x
x
Pirkanmaa
x
x
x
x
Koitere
x
x
x
x
Plavinas
x
Mäntsälä
x
Ylä-Lappi
x
x
x
x
Mustionjoki
x
x
x
x
x
Iijoki
x
x
x
x
x
Keski-Suomi
x
6
Integration –definition and criteria
● Integration
○ How MCDA is linked to the planning process and how it
supports various phases of the process.
● Criteria/questions
○ When was MCDA introduced into the process?
○ How MCDA affected the design and realization of the
planning process?
• How well were the phases of MCDA and the planning process
integrated?
○ How MCDA’s results were used in decision making?
• What was steering group’s role in MCDA?
Interaction –definition and criteria
● Interaction
○ How key stakeholders are involved in the various
phases of the process and how the weight elicitation
and analysis of the results are carried out.
● Criteria/questions
○ Who were involved?
• Did participants cover a wide spectrum of views?
○ Did participants have an opportunity to give their input to
all phases of MCDA?
○ How interactive was the modelling phase?
8
Evaluation of the projects
Mustionjoki (2010)
Very high
Pirkanmaa
(2002)
Koitere (2005)
Päijänne (1998)
Integration of
MCDA
Mäntsälä (2007)
Kokemäenjoki (1993)
Oulujärvi (1992)
Iijoki (2010)
Plavinas (2006)
Keski-Suomi
(2011)
Ylä-Lappi (2008)
Low
Low
Interaction of MCDA
Very high
Mustionjoki-project: Comparing different
mitigation measures to enhance
freshwater mussel and salmon
populations
● MCDA provided a
framework and a
roadmap for the project.
● Stakeholder steering
group (8 persons) actively
participated from the
beginning of the project
○ 10 meetings and two
workshops
● Value-focused thinking
was used in the structuring
phase.
● 12 face-to-face interviews
were carried out with WebHIPRE.
● Project lasted 8 months.
10
The benefits of integration and interaction
● The levels of integration and interaction have a crucial
impact on the quality and effectiveness of the MCDA
process and its outcomes.
○ Acceptability of the process and outcome improves
● The pros of integrated and interactive process:
Improved
consistency
Enhanced
learning
Improved
fairness and
transparency
Improved trust
toward the
results
Sustained
interest of
participants on
the process
11
13.4.2015
Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE
Improved
consistency
● People have difficulties in assigning consistent
and unbiased weights.
○ Splitting bias and range effect
○ Cognitively demanding task to give weights to the
uppermost level criteria
● Close interaction between the analyst and the
participant in the weight elicitation is necessary.
● The analyst can detect possible
misunderstandings, inconsistencies, and biases
in participants' answers.
● More carefully answers in the presence of the
facilitator than independently.
Improved
consistency
Enhanced
learning
Improved trust
toward the
results
Improved
fairness and
transparency
Sustained
interest of
participants on
the process
12
13.4.2015
Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE
Enhanced
learning
● Value-based and structured approach creates
favourable conditions for learning
○ Mutual trust and understanding
”Use of MCDA softened my rigid opinions”
● DAIs inspire learning and understanding in a
different manner than traditional meetings and
workshops.
○ “Learning by analysing” approach
○ Immediate feedback
○ Iterative approach
• Opportunity to modify the weights
Improved
consistency
Enhanced
learning
Improved trust
toward the
results
Improved
fairness and
transparency
Sustained
interest of
participants on
the process
13
13.4.2015
Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE
Improved trust
towards the
results
● Due to the interactive use….
○ People see how their answers are used as input
values for the analysis and also how they affect
the outcome.
○ It is possible to ensure that the participants have a
sufficient understanding of the MCDA model.
○ The risk that people are feeling being manipulated
by a "black-box" methodology reduces.
=> Stakeholders’ trust toward the model, results and
the whole planning process increases.
Improved
consistency
Enhanced
learning
Improved trust
toward the
results
Improved
fairness and
transparency
Sustained
interest of
participants on
the process
14
13.4.2015
Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE
Improved
fairness and
transparency
● The personal decision analysis interview is a
good way to provide each participant an
opportunity to express her opinions and to get
one's opinion equally documented.
● DAIs may have positive impacts on the
perception of the fairness of the planning
processes.
● DAIs signal that the problem owner had a
genuine aspiration to identify and balance
different interests and objectives.
Improved
consistency
Enhanced
learning
Improved trust
toward the
results
Improved
fairness and
transparency
Sustained
interest of
participants on
the process
15
13.4.2015
Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE
Sustained
interest of
participants on
the process
● In the projects lasting several years it is a big
challenge to keep participants active and
committed.
● The integrated and interactive use of the MCDA
helps in realizing meaningful and effective
stakeholder processes.
Improved
consistency
Enhanced
learning
Improved trust
toward the
results
Improved
fairness and
transparency
Sustained
interest of
participants on
the process
16
13.4.201
Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE
Concluding remarks
● MCDA has a very good image in water resources planning
○ ”Soft” participatory approach and successful projects
● Strong support in ministries and SYKE’s management
○ Implementation of EU Floods Directive and Water Framework Directive
○ New arenas: Improving EIA and SEA by adopting good practices and
tools of MCDA (EU Life+ application)
● Gap between MCDA’s potential and its current use
○ Great need for integrated and participatory approaches in
environmental planning and management
○ Lack of MCDA experts
● Integrating MCDA into the planning process is not an easy
goal but worth of striving
○ Easiest when the analyst acts also as the project manager.
17
13.4.2015
Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
THANK YOU!
Raimo
• Marttunen, M. and Hämäläinen, R.P. 2008. Decision analysis interviews in supporting collaborative
management of a large regulated water course. Environmental Management 42 (6): 1026-1042.
• Hämäläinen, R.P, Mustajoki, J. and Marttunen, M. 2010. Web -based Decision Support: Creating
a culture of applying multi-criteria decision analysis and web supported participation in environmental
decision making. In Rios Insua, D. and French, S. (eds): e-Democracy. A Group Decision and
18
Negotiation Perspective. 2010. XII, 364 p.