Abteilung Umweltsozialwissenschaften

Entscheidungsanalyse (DA)

A group of people discussing a decision

Kontakt

PD Dr. Judit Lienert Group Leader, Cluster: DA (Decision Analysis) Tel. +41 58 765 5574 E-Mail senden

Ziel dieser Gruppe ist ein besseres Verständnis von schwierigen Entscheidungen sowie die Unterstützung von realen Entscheidungsprozessen. Die Gruppe nutzt Wissen aus den Ingenieur- und Naturwissenschaften um zur Lösung von gesellschaftlich relevanten Problemen beizutragen. Der thematische Schwerpunkt liegt in der Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und der Erhaltung von natürlichen Wasserressourcen.

«Schwierige Entscheidungen» sind komplex weil die Entscheider in der Regel mehrere – zum Teil sich widersprechende – Ziele erreichen möchten. Ein Ziel könnte zum Beispiel ‚tiefe Kosten’ sein und ein anderes Ziel die ‚Einführung der besten technischen Massnahme’, welche zugleich aber auch die teuerste sein könnte. Bei realen Entscheidungssituationen sind zudem oft mehrere Akteure mit unterschiedlichen Interessen beteiligt. Die Komplexität wird zusätzlich durch Unsicherheit erhöht, zum Beispiel weil die längerfristigen Konsequenzen einer Entscheidung unklar sind.

Was ist die Multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse (MCDA)?

Schwierige Entscheidungen

Entscheidungsprobleme können schwierig sein, wenn die Entscheidungsträger mehrere kontroverse Ziele zu erreichen hoffen. Zum Beispiel könnte ein Ziel ‚niedrige Kosten’ sein und ein anderes Ziel ‚hohe Umweltverträglichkeit’. Die technisch umweltverträglichste Lösung könnte allerdings auch die teuerste sein. An Umweltentscheidungen sind gewöhnlich mehrere Akteure mit unterschiedlichen Interessen und Werten beteiligt. Ungewissheit zum Beispiel über die längerfristigen Konsequenzen von Entscheidungen erhöhen die Komplexität weiter.

Die Multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse (MCDA von ‚Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis‘) unterstützt das systematische Denken, um das Entscheidungsproblem zu strukturieren und die Präferenzen und Werte der Betroffenen zu verstehen. Sie versucht, alle verfügbaren Informationen zu integrieren: wissenschaftliche Daten und ‚harte Fakten’ zusammen mit den subjektiven Präferenzen der Akteure. Sie verbessert den Entscheidungsprozess durch Erhöhung der Transparenz. Ihr Ziel ist die optimale Entscheidung, die bei allen Parteien auf hohe Akzeptanz stösst.

Gute Entscheidungsprozesse auf der Basis der Multikriteriellen Entscheidungsanalyse (MCDA)

Vorhersagen

Die Multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse (MCDA) analysiert ‚harte Fakten’, d.h. Vorhersagen über die Konsequenzen der Wahl einer spezifischen Entscheidungsoption. Wenn beispielsweise Ingenieure zwischen verschiedenen Abwasserbehandlungstechnologien wählen müssen, ist es für sie wichtig, zu wissen, wie gut Nährstoffe oder Mikroverunreinigungen entfernt werden, und wie viel jede der Optionen kostet. Für fundierte Vorhersagen über die Ergebnisse verschiedener Entscheidungsoptionen können Modellierungstechniken oder Expertengutachten herangezogen werden.

Ungewissheit

Vorhersagen sollten Ungewissheiten wie etwa einen Mangel an wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen einbeziehen. Zum Beispiel kann es sein, dass man nicht exakt weiss, wie ein Ökosystem auf eine Managementintervention reagiert. Vorhersagen sind auch wegen Vereinfachungen in den verwendeten Modellen ungewiss, oder weil Expertenurteile unsicher sind. Über längere Zeiträume wächst die Ungewissheit, weil die Zukunft unbekannt ist. In solchen Fällen kann es hilfreich sein, eine Szenarienplanung mit MCDA zu kombinieren, um verschiedene mögliche Zukunftsverläufe zu betrachten.

Problemstrukturierung

Die MCDA analysiert auch ‚weiche Daten’, d.h. die Präferenzen der Entscheidungsträgerinnen und der Akteure. Ein guter Entscheidungsprozess gewährleistet, dass die wichtigen Akteure und die von der Entscheidung betroffenen Personen einbezogen werden. Es kann nützlich sein, Teilnehmer mit einer Akteurs-Analyse auszuwählen, die zur grossen Familie der Problemstrukturierungsmethoden (PSM) gehört. Solche Methoden können auch helfen, zu gewährleisten, dass die Entscheidungssituation richtig verstanden wird, bevor MCDA eingesetzt wird, und dass die Hauptziele aller betroffenen Personen und wenn möglich die mutmasslichen Interessen künftiger Generationen in Betracht gezogen werden.

Präferenzen

Menschen haben unterschiedliche Wertsysteme und bei einer Entscheidung daher unterschiedliche Präferenzen. Dies hat insbesondere einen Einfluss darauf, wie Menschen die Bedeutung von Zielen wahrnehmen, und wie sie unter Ungewissheit entscheiden. Wenn nicht alle Ziele erreicht werden können, müssen Kompromisse zwischen widersprüchlichen Zielen gemacht werden. Präferenzerhebungsmethoden helfen beispielsweise, abzuklären, wie wichtig die Erreichung eines Ziels ist, und wie gut dieses gegen ein anderes Ziel austauschbar ist. Wenn zum Beispiel der ökologische Wert eines Flusses für eine gefährdete Vogelart verbessert werden soll, kann dies bedeuten, dass die Bevölkerung nicht mehr am Flussufer picknicken darf. Solche Kompromisse beruhen auf den best- und schlimmstmöglichen Fällen für jedes Ziel im Hinblick auf das spezifische Entscheidungsproblem (z. B. die Kosten der billigsten und teuersten Option oder die benutzerfreundlichste/-unfreundlichste Technologie). Präferenzerhebungsprozesse (Interviews oder Gruppen-Workshops) sind anspruchsvoll, weil die Menschen beim Beantworten unserer Fragen systematisch zu Voreingenommenheiten neigen. Möglicherweise sind sie auch unsicher über ihre Antworten, und sie können risikoscheu sein, wenn die Ergebnisse einer Entscheidung (d.h. die Vorhersagen) unsicher sind.

MCDA-Modellierung und Resultate

Präferenzerhebungsmethoden erfassen die Präferenzen der Entscheidungsträger in Zahlen. Diese Präferenzparameter gehen zusammen mit den ‚harten Fakten’, den Vorhersagen, in das Entscheidungsanalysemodell ein. Das Resultat des MCDA Modells ist ein Ranking der Entscheidungsoptionen von der besten zur schlechtesten. Falls mehrere Akteure interviewt wurden, kann für jeden Akteur ein anderes Ranking resultieren. Ausserdem können manche Entscheidungsoptionen unsicherer sein als andere. Der MCDA Prozess hilft, gute Kompromissoptionen auszuwählen, die trotz Ungewissheiten für alle Akteure einigermassen gute Ergebnisse liefern. MCDA sollte als iterativen Prozess angesehen werden und ist oft nützlich, um aufgrund der Erkenntnisse aus dem Prozess neue Entscheidungsoptionen zu konstruieren. Zudem ist es sehr nützlich, die Resultate der MCDA mit den Akteuren zu diskutieren.

Forschungsthemen und -methoden

Ein wichtiger Forschungsschwerpunkt des Clusters Entscheidungsanalyse ist die Frage, wie man mit der hohen Komplexität in realen Umweltentscheidungen besser umgehen kann, ohne ungerechtfertigte Kompromisse an die wissenschaftliche Genauigkeit zu machen. Viele Forschungsfragen wurden in der Multikriteriellen Entscheidungsanalyse (MCDA) mit gut definierten Entscheidungsproblemen angegangen. In der realen Welt sind Entscheidungen eher komplex und unklar, es sind viele Akteure beteiligt und eine Reihe von Ungewissheiten zu berücksichtigen.

Unsere Forschung zielt darauf ab, die Umsetzbarkeit und die Zuverlässigkeit des gesamten Entscheidungsprozesses zu verbessern. Dies bezieht alle Schritte der MCDA (s. ‘Was ist MCDA?’) ein. MCDA ist ein Überbegriff für eine Vielzahl von Methoden; wir konzentrieren uns auf die Wert- und Nutzentheorie, die sogenannte ‚Multi-Attribute Value Theory‘ (MAVT) und die ‚Multi-Attribute Utility Theory‘ (MAUT).

Wir entwickeln unsere Forschung in angewandten Projekten der realen Welt. Entscheidungsträgerinnen und Akteure sind stark in die verschiedenen Schritte des Entscheidungsprozesses einbezogen. Unser transdisziplinärer Ansatz ist auch für unsere Fallstudienpartner nützlich: Dank unserer Forschung gewinnen sie mehr Einblick in ihr schwieriges Entscheidungsproblem.

Forschungsgegenstände und einige Forschungsfragen

Problemstrukturierung (‚Framing‘)

Die Strukturierung des Entscheidungsproblems wirkt sich stark auf das Ergebnis der MCDA aus. Das Ziel ist, alle relevanten Aspekte und wichtigen Akteure einzubeziehen und den Entscheidungsprozess im Hinblick auf die Bewältigung des jeweiligen Umweltproblems optimal zu strukturieren. Einige Forschungsfragen sind:

  • Wie ist MCDA am besten mit Problemstrukturierungsmethoden (PSM; z. B. Akteurs-Analyse, Szenarienplanung, kognitives Mapping, Strategy Generation Table, SWOT-Analyse, Soft Systems Methodology) zu kombinieren?
  • Systematisierung und Anleitung für Best Practices beim Aufsetzen des Entscheidungsproblems.
  • Welche guten Möglichkeiten gibt es, um Zielhierarchien zu strukturieren; was sind die Vor- und Nachteile, wenn man die Komplexität reduziert?
  • Welche Attribute (‚Indikatoren‘) sind geeignet, um die Konsequenzen von Optionen wissenschaftlich präzis und zugleich für die Akteure nachvollziehbar zu messen?
Ungewissheit

Es gibt verschiedene Quellen für Ungewissheit: Ungewissheit über (i) Randbedingungen, z. B. zukünftige sozioökonomische Entwicklung, (ii) korrekte Strukturierung von Entscheidungsproblemen (s. oben), (iii) die Voraussagen (wissenschaftliche / von Experten), (iv) Präferenzen der Entscheidungsträger und (v) Präferenzen für Entscheidungen unter Risiko.

  • Wie lassen sich Zukunftsszenarien bei der MCDA-Präferenzerhebung und -modellierung am besten einbeziehen? Wie lassen sich die Präferenzen der Entscheidungsträgerin erheben, wenn verschiedene Zukunftsverläufe möglich sind?
  • Wie können wir über die Zeit Entscheidungen treffen, wenn künftige Entwicklungen in hohem Grad ungewiss sind?
  • Wann sollten wir in einer bestimmten Entscheidung Forschungsanstrengungen auf die Ungewissheit von Vorhersagen konzentrieren? Wie stark beeinflussen veränderte Annahmen (Sensitivitätsanalysen) die Folgen einer Entscheidung?
  • Wie können wir Expertengutachten verwenden, um Voraussagen zu machen, wenn die Folgen eines Ziels schwierig zu modellieren und/oder in hohem Grad ungewiss und/oder schwierig zu verstehen sind?
  • Wie können wir von Akteuren auf praktikable und verständliche Weise Nutzenfunktionen für Entscheidungen unter Risiko erheben?
Präferenzerhebung

Ein Hauptziel der Gruppe Entscheidungsanalyse besteht darin, besser anwendbare, vereinfachte Erhebungsverfahren zu finden, die sich ohne Weiteres auf komplexe Umweltentscheidungsprobleme anwenden lassen. Eine vereinfachte Erhebung wird helfen, Forschungserkenntnisse in die Praxis zu übertragen und die Anwendung von MCDA in der realen Welt zu erweitern. Aus der psychologischen Forschung ist allerdings wohl bekannt, dass Menschen gern zu Voreingenommenheiten neigen und gegen die axiomatischen Grundlagen der MAVT / MAUT verstossen. Auch können sich Präferenzen im Laufe der Zeit und aus zahlreichen Gründen ändern.

International ist ‚Behavioral Operations Research‘ (BOR) zu einem wichtigen Thema geworden. Mit unserer Forschung wollen wir zu diesem Feld beitragen. Wir arbeiten deshalb an der Entwicklung von Erhebungsverfahren, die Voreingenommenheiten vermeiden oder sie ausgleichen, die leicht anwendbar und verständlich, zuverlässig und vertrauenswürdig sind. Typische Forschungsfragen sind:

  • Welches sind die besten Methoden, um Wertfunktionen einzelner Attribute und Gewichte (oder Skalierungskonstanten) zu erheben? Wie können wir Entscheidungsträgern während der Erhebung helfen (z. B. visuelle und verbale Darstellung, indirekte oder direkte Erhebung)?
  • Welche Aggregationsmodelle stellen die Präferenzen der Menschen besser dar, wenn das additive Modell ungeeignet ist? Wie können wir die Modellparameter erheben?
  • Können wir die Interaktion mit den Akteuren effektiv vermindern, indem wir die Modellierungsbemühungen zu Beginn der MCDA intensivieren?
  • Wie können wir mit Ungewissheit umgehen (s. oben): Risikoeinstellungen und Präferenzen bei verschiedenen Zukunftsszenarien erheben und mit der Unsicherheit von Entscheidungsträgerinnen über ihre eigenen Präferenzen umgehen?
  • Wie stabil sind Präferenzen über die Zeit? Was folgt daraus für reale Entscheidungen?
  • Wie fällt der Vergleich einer Erhebung im Interview mit schnelleren Erhebungsprozessen aus (z. B. Bevölkerungsbefragung, Entscheidungsfindung in einer Gruppe)?

Methoden

Datensammlung
  • Literaturanalyse
  • Expertenbefragung
  • Anwendung und Entwicklung von Modellen für Vorhersagen
  • Workshops zur Strukturierung von Entscheidungsproblemen
  • Erhebung von Präferenzen mit persönlichen Interviews, Gruppenworkshops, (online) Umfragen, Experimenten
  • Evaluation des Prozesses, z. B. mit Fragebogen
Datenanalyse
  • Multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse (MCDA), spezifisch Wertetheorie (Multi-Attribute Value Theory, MAVT) und Nutzentheorie (Multi-Attribute Utility Theory, MAUT); Fokus auf Flexibilität (z. B. verschiedene Aggregationsmodelle) und Unsicherheit (z. B. globale Sensitivitätsanalyse)
  • Problemstrukturierungsmethoden (Problem Structuring Methods, PSM), z. B. Akteurs-Analyse, Szenarienplanung, kognitives Mapping, Strategy Generation Table, SWOT-Analyse)
  • Vorhersagen: Expertenwissen, Modellierungen und Kombinationen (Bayes’sche Netzwerke)
  • Literatur Reviews
  • Statistische Analysen (z. B. Regressionsmodelle)
Inter- und transdisziplinäre Forschung

Die Gruppe Entscheidungsanalyse arbeitet eng mit Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern anderer Disziplinen an der Eawag zusammen (Ingenieure, Chemikerinnen, Ökotoxikologinnen und andere Sozialwissenschaftler der Abteilung ESS) sowie mit Akteuren in den angewandten Projekten.

Einführung in die MCDA. Interview mit Judit Lienert

Eawag News Artikel, April 2019

Aktuelle Projekte

Wir untersuchen Präferenzen, Risikoeinstellung, Einfluss und Zusammenarbeit verschiedener Schweizer Akteure, um Konsens-Optionen zur Steuerung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln zu finden.

Politik- und Entscheidungsanalyse zur Regulierung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Schweiz
Wir entwickeln Bewertungsansätze für Planungsunterstützungssysteme, um die strategische Planung von naturbasierten Lösungen in unseren Städten zu verbessern.

MOVE-NBS: Planung von blau-grüner Infrastruktur

Entscheidungsanalyse Werkzeuge

Werkzeuge, um die Schritte der Multikriteriellen Entscheidungsanalyse (MCDA) zu unterstützen

Entscheidungsanalyse Werkzeuge

Abgeschlossene Projekte

We study how game implementation can support stakeholder involvement and preference modelling in MCDA.

Serious Games as an element of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
Serious Games und Gamification werden zunehmend genutzt, um Stakeholder zu involvieren. Wir untersuchen, ob und wie sie die Entscheidungsfindung partizipativer gestalten.

Environmental Decision Analysis with Games - Edanaga
Das Projekt hat zum Ziel, die Anwendung der multikriteriellen Entscheidungsanalyse auf komplexe Umweltprobleme zu verbessern.

Verbesserung der Problemstrukturierung in der Entscheidungsanalyse
Goal is an improved planning procedure for sustainable water supply and wastewater infrastructure management that links into the existing Swiss governance structures.

Sustainable Water Infrastructure Planning (SWIP)
Mit der MCDA können Präferenzen von Expertinnen über Kosten-Nutzen-Abwägungen in ökologische Bewertungen integriert werden.

Entscheidungsanalyse zur Unterstützung von Flussrevitalisierungen
Removal of pharmaceuticals from hospital wastewater is well accepted by stakeholders if trade-off between good performance of an option and its costs is reasonable.

How to handle hospital wastewater
Hohe Zahlungsbereitschaft der Bevölkerung um Risiken von Abwasserüberflutungen und Mischwasserentlastung zu vermindern

Umweltrelevante gesellschaftliche Entscheidungsprozesse
Das Ziel des Projekts ist die Weiterentwicklung eines multikriteriellen Verfahrens zur Entscheidungsanalyse in der Siedlungswasserwirtschaft.

Wertefokussierte Planung von Wasserinfrastrukturen
Ziel ist es, bekannte Fairness-Prinzipien im Kontext der Abwasserentsorgung zu untersuchen.

Fairness in der Planung von neuen Abwasserinfrastrukturen
Ziel ist die partizipative Entscheidungsunterstützung für den langfristigen Übergang zu alternativen Abwasserinfrastrukturen

Entscheidungsfindung bei Transformation von Abwasserinfrastrukturen
Aufbau von Partnerschaften in der Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie (IKT) für ein Vorhersage- und Warnsystem für Hochwasserereignisse in Westafrika.

FANFAR: Zusammenarbeit für ein Hochwasser-Vorhersagesystem

Team

PD Dr. Judit Lienert Group Leader, Cluster: DA (Decision Analysis) Tel. +41 58 765 5574 E-Mail senden
Milena Wiget Doktorandin Tel. +41 58 765 6749 E-Mail senden
Anna Cajochen Tel. +41 58 765 5621 E-Mail senden

Publikationen

Bitte beachten: viele der Publikationen könnten auch anders zugeordnet werden. Wir haben sie derjenigen Kategorie zugewiesen, für die sie vermutlich am relevantesten ist.

Strukturierung Entscheidungsproblem: Ziele, Optionen, Szenarien, Akteursanalyse

Gamifying and evaluating problem structuring: a card game workshop for generating decision objectives

Serious games, gamification, or game-based interventions are increasingly used as tools to aid participatory decision-making processes, but their evaluation is often not very rigorous. Therefore, it is still unclear whether game-based interventions are really beneficial. We focused on the following overarching question: how effective are game-based interventions specifically designed to support decision-making processes. We used an illustrative case to reflect on this question. Using a published framework proposing that design processes of game-based interventions and their evaluation are intertwined, we designed simultaneously (1) a game-based intervention, specifically a card game and a workshop structure in which this card game is to be used, and (2) its evaluation procedure, formulating evaluation questions and proposing measure instruments based on the literature. We pre-tested the evaluation procedure in a small pilot study with 10 students. We illustrate the use of the design framework for an intervention to generate objectives in a decision-making process about sustainable wastewater management. Through our illustrative case, we identify future research opportunities about designing game-based interventions and evaluating their effectiveness. We found that it is possible to address the dual challenge of game-based interventions for participatory decision-making processes: (1) designing an informative and engaging game-based intervention without telling participants what to think and (2) designing a tailored evaluation procedure. Designing the game-based intervention and its evaluation simultaneously is valuable, because both are strongly intertwined. However, conducting the evaluation is demanding and requires the collaborative efforts of scientists, including across disciplinary boundaries. For instance, the data collection effort could be distributed among different research groups to increase sample size. This would allow including control treatment(s) and covering the variation span of the confounding factors more broadly. All material is made openly available to foster collaborative future research.
Aubert, A. H.; McConville, J.; Schmid, S.; Lienert, J. (2022) Gamifying and evaluating problem structuring: a card game workshop for generating decision objectives, EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 10, 100021 (13 pp.), doi:10.1016/j.ejdp.2022.100021, Institutional Repository

Enhancing the elicitation of diverse decision objectives for public planning

Identifying objectives is essential for decision making, but individuals have difficulties stating their important objectives. In public and environmental decisions, the diverse views of stakeholders should be included, but eliciting a broad set of objectives is challenging. We (1) study the effectiveness of individual brainstorming for eliciting objectives in a real-world setting; (2) test three interventions to support individuals in generating objectives; (3) investigate which and how many stakeholders are necessary to generate a comprehensive set of objectives; and (4) develop a feasible elicitation procedure for practice. In an experimental test, 71 stakeholders participated in five decisions about regional wastewater infrastructure planning in Switzerland. Three interventions were tested with an online survey procedure: (i) providing category cues, (ii) a perspective-taking task, and (iii) providing a predefined master list of objectives. In simple brainstorming, participants stated few objectives (M = 3.3) associated with 2.9 different categories on average. Participants consistently missed objectives they later considered important. Providing a master list was the only intervention that substantially increased the number and breadth of objectives (M = 12 objectives in M = 5.3 categories). With the help of our survey, participants generated between 30 and 38 distinct objectives for each decision case. Between five and nine participants were sufficient to generate these; more participants did not contribute new objectives. Most decision makers need help generating their objectives; combining simple brainstorming with a master list is a straightforward improvement that does not require a facilitator. An online process is promising for involving a large group of stakeholders.
Haag, F.; Zürcher, S.; Lienert, J. (2019) Enhancing the elicitation of diverse decision objectives for public planning, European Journal of Operational Research, 279(3), 912-928, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2019.06.002, Institutional Repository

Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis

Building a well-structured objectives hierarchy is central to multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). However, in the absence of a systematic methodology to support the process, this task has been described as "more art than science". Objectives hierarchies often tend to become large and constraining the size of a hierarchy can be challenging. This paper proposes and illustrates the use of a set of methods to support the simplification of the hierarchies in contexts that are "data rich" and characterised by many objectives. The aim of using the proposed approach is to support decision analysts in developing an appropriately concise decision model for the further interactions with the stakeholders. Using data from two completed environmental cases we show retrospectively how qualitative (means-ends networks), semi-quantitative (relevancy analysis) and quantitative (correlation analysis, principal component analysis, local sensitivity analysis of weights) methods, used alone or in combination, can inform hierarchy development. We evaluate the potential benefits and challenges of each method and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the simplification of an objectives hierarchy. Questionnaire-based relevancy analysis can be a useful method to identify and communicate important objectives in the early phases of an MCDA process with stakeholders, while correlation analysis can help to identify overlapping objectives, particularly in cases having many objectives and alternatives. It is intended that the methods support a facilitator in developing a clear understanding of the problem and also prompt deeper thinking about and discussion of the appropriate structure and content of an objectives hierarchy with the stakeholders involved.
Marttunen, M.; Haag, F.; Belton, V.; Mustajoki, J.; Lienert, J. (2019) Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, 277(2), 604-620, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.039, Institutional Repository

Identifying relevant objectives in environmental management decisions: an application to a national monitoring program for river restoration

Environmental monitoring covers many different management domains. They range from biodiversity conservation to water protection, natural hazard prevention, impact assessment, resource use, or environmental restoration. The need for clear objectives has long been emphasized in the management literature, but has often received only little attention in monitoring design. This is partly due to the lack of systematic approaches for setting objectives. In this paper, we present a formal approach based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), namely relevancy analysis, to prioritize management objectives. We demonstrate its use for a river restoration monitoring program in Switzerland comprising 35 physical and biological objectives. The relevancy of an objective is based on two main components, the general importance of the objective, and the problemspecific impact range. The general importance of an objective is used to identify the most important management objectives from a hierarchy within the national program (i.e. objectives to be monitored). The impact range is used to understand which management objectives are more important to monitor for different river restoration measures (i.e. sub-selection of the objectives specifically for the restoration measure). The general importance of a management objective was determined based on the frequency an objective is mentioned in selected policy documents, and the legislative power and temporal persistency of each document. The impact ranges were identified from a questionnaire involving 15 Swiss river restoration professionals. Hereby, we assumed that the impact range increases as the anticipated impact of the restoration measure on a specific management objective increases, and as the uncertainty to anticipate this impact increases. For simplicity, we applied the approach only to one restoration measure, namely river widening. Six management objectives scored high in relevancy in terms of both impact range and general importance – channel structure and diversity, structure and diversity of the banks and floodplains, sediment dynamics, longitudinal connectivity, lateral connectivity, and vertical connectivity. Hence, these objectives are both important national objectives for river monitoring (according to the legislation) and are objectives that are potentially highly impacted by a river widening project. We performed sensitivity analyses related to the calculation of the general importance, the impact range, and the relevancy of the objectives. The practice-oriented approach can be transferred to a broad diversity of decision situations where there is a need for systematic evaluation of the importance of objectives. It could be a useful tool for social learning and finding group consensus about the priority of the objectives.
Marttunen, M.; Weber, C.; Åberg, U.; Lienert, J. (2019) Identifying relevant objectives in environmental management decisions: an application to a national monitoring program for river restoration, Ecological Indicators, 101, 851-866, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.042, Institutional Repository

Towards a new paradigm of urban water infrastructure: identifying goals and strategies to support multi-benefit municipal wastewater treatment

Over the past decade, water professionals have begun to focus on a new paradigm for urban water systems, which entails the recovery of resources from wastewater, the integration of engineered and natural systems, and coordination among agencies managing different facets of water systems. In the San Francisco Bay Area, planning for nutrient management serves as an exemplary model of this transition. We employed a variety of methodological approaches including stakeholder analysis, multi-criteria decision-making weight elicitation, and document analysis to understand and support decision-making in this context. Based on interviews with 32 stakeholders, we delineate goals that are considered to be important for achieving the new paradigm and we highlight management strategies that can help reach these goals. We identify and analyze the social, institutional, and technical impediments to planning and implementing multi-benefit wastewater infrastructure projects and identify strategies to overcome some of these challenges. Transitioning to a new paradigm for urban water infrastructure will require stakeholders to proactively forge collaborative relationships, jointly define a shared vision and objectives, and build new rules to overcome limitations of current institutional policies.
Harris-Lovett, S.; Lienert, J.; Sedlak, D. L. (2018) Towards a new paradigm of urban water infrastructure: identifying goals and strategies to support multi-benefit municipal wastewater treatment, Water, 10(9), 1127 (22 pp.), doi:10.3390/w10091127, Institutional Repository

Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Procedural and behavioural biases have received little attention in recent Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) research. Our literature review shows that most research on biases was done 15–30 years ago. This study focuses on biases that are introduced at an early stage of MCDA when building objectives hierarchies and their effect on the weights. The main objective is to investigate whether prior findings regarding such biases, which were mostly based on laboratory experiments, can be found in real-world applications. We conducted a meta-analysis of the objectives hierarchies and weight elicitation procedures in 61 environmental and energy MCDA cases. Relationships between the structural characteristics of the objectives hierarchy and assigned objectives’ weights were analysed with statistical tests. Our main research questions were: (i) How does hierarchy size and structure affect the objectives’ weights? (ii) How are weights distributed across economic, social and environmental objectives? (iii) Is there support for the equalising bias? Our findings are mostly aligned with earlier research and suggest that the hierarchy structure and content can substantially influence weight distributions. For example, hierarchical weighting seems to be sensitive to the asymmetry bias, which can occur when a hierarchy has branches that differ in the number of sub-objectives. We found no evidence for the equalising bias. We highlight issues deserving more attention when developing objectives hierarchies and eliciting weights. The research demonstrates the potential to use meta-analysis, which has not previously been used in this way in the MCDA field, to learn from a collection of applications.
Marttunen, M.; Belton, V.; Lienert, J. (2018) Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, 265(1), 178-194, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.038, Institutional Repository

Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations

Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has attracted increasing attention over the past 20 years from both a conceptual and a practical perspective. This is reflected in a significant growth in the number of published applications which use a formal approach to problem structuring in combination with an analytic method for multi-criteria analysis. The problem structuring approaches (PSMs) include general methodologies such as Checkland's Soft Systems Method (SSM), Eden and Ackermann's Strategic Options Design and Analysis (SODA) and other methods that focus on a particular aspect. We carried out a literature review that covers eight PSMs (Cognitive and Causal Maps, DPSIR, Scenario Planning, SSM, Stakeholder Analysis, Strategic Choice Approach, SODA and SWOT) and seven MCDA methods (AHP, ANP, ELECTRE, MAUT, MAVT, PROMETHEE and TOPSIS). We first identified and analysed 333 articles published during 2000-2015, then selected 68 articles covering all PSM-MCDA combinations, which were studied in detail to understand the associated processes, benefits and challenges. The three PSMs most commonly combined with MCDA are SWOT, Scenario Planning and DPSIR. AHP was by far the most commonly applied MCDA method. Combining PSMs with MCDA produces a richer view of the decision situation and enables more effective support for different phases of the decision-making process. Some limitations and challenges in combining PSMs and MCDA are also identified, most importantly relating to building a value tree and assigning criteria weights.
Marttunen, M.; Lienert, J.; Belton, V. (2017) Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations, European Journal of Operational Research, 263(1), 1-17, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041, Institutional Repository

Structured decision-making for sustainable water infrastructure planning and four future scenarios

Water supply and wastewater infrastructures are vital for human well-being and environmental protection; they adhere to the highest standards, are expensive and long-lived. Because they are also aging, substantial planning is required. Climate and socio-economic change create large planning uncertainties and simple projections of past developments are no longer adequate. This paper presents the initial phases of a structured decision-making (SDM) procedure which is designed to increase the sustainability of water infrastructure planning and includes various stakeholders in an exemplary Swiss case study. We evaluate the SDM approach critically based on stakeholder feedback, give general recommendations and provide ample material to make it applicable to other settings. We carried out 27 interviews and two stakeholder workshops. We identified important objectives for water infrastructure planning, including all three sustainability pillars and their respective attributes (indicators, benchmarks) to measure how well the objectives are achieved. We then created strategic decision alternatives, including "business-as-usual" upgrades of the central water supply and wastewater system as well as semi- to fully decentralized alternatives. To tackle future uncertainty, we developed four socio-demographic scenarios. We used these to test the robustness of decision alternatives in a later Multi-Attribute Utility Theory analysis. Additionally, we contribute to the topical discussion of combining scenario planning with multi-criteria decision analysis and demonstrate how various scenarios can stimulate creativity when generating decision alternatives. Their internal consistency is ensured by rigorously specifying them using a strategy generation table. Our SDM procedure can be adapted to inform decisions about sustainable water infrastructures in other contexts.
Lienert, J.; Scholten, L.; Egger, C.; Maurer, M. (2015) Structured decision-making for sustainable water infrastructure planning and four future scenarios, EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 3, 107-140, doi:10.1007/s40070-014-0030-0, Institutional Repository

Additional information for "Structured decision-making for sustainable water infrastructure planning and four future scenarios"

To support Sustainable Water Infrastructure Planning (SWIP), a participatory decision-making procedure was developed in the SWIP project at Eawag1. This procedure is based on Structured Decision Making (SDM)2, which guides stakeholders through different steps of the decision process: (1) clarify decision context (may include a stakeholder analysis); (2) define objectives and attributes; (3) develop alternatives; (4) estimate consequences; (5) evaluate trade-offs and select alternatives; and (6) implement, monitor and review.
The SDM application to water infrastructure planning was developed in close collaboration with stakeholders in a case study near Zürich, Switzerland. The experienced advantages and disadvantages of the first steps of the proposed procedure were discussed in a scientific publication by Lienert et al. (2014)3. We strongly encourage others to apply this SDM procedure for sustainable water infrastructure planning to their specific case. To this end, the approach was developed in a generalized way and we present more material covering the different steps of the SDM procedure in this working paper.
The here presented material includes different steps in the development of a comprehensive objectives hierarchy for water supply and wastewater management. The objectives are operationalized with attributes (indicators/ benchmarks), which are described in detail, including the ranges (best- and worst-possible case) and a description of the status quo. Four future scenarios were developed in a scenario planning workshop together with local stakeholders to capture socio-demographic uncertainty, which are again described in detail. Ten strategic decision alternatives were developed by stakeholders with help of a strategy generation table. These include the current system with central water supply and wastewater treatment plants, but also fully decentralized on-site options and different management strategies. The strategy generation table can be used to tailor decision alternatives for water infrastructure planning to other cases. Finally, we provide detailed feedback from the stakeholders for each step. We evaluate the proposed SDM approach and give recommendations for other applications.
Lienert, J.; Scholten, L.; Egger, C.; Maurer, M. (2015) Additional information for "Structured decision-making for sustainable water infrastructure planning and four future scenarios", 48 p, Institutional Repository

Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes

Environmental policy and decision-making are characterized by complex interactions between different actors and sectors. As a rule, a stakeholder analysis is performed to understand those involved, but it has been criticized for lacking quality and consistency. This lack is remedied here by a formal social network analysis that investigates collaborative and multi-level governance settings in a rigorous way. We examine the added value of combining both elements. Our case study examines infrastructure planning in the Swiss water sector. Water supply and wastewater infrastructures are planned far into the future, usually on the basis of projections of past boundary conditions. They affect many actors, including the population, and are expensive. In view of increasing future dynamics and climate change, a more participatory and long-term planning approach is required. Our specific aims are to investigate fragmentation in water infrastructure planning, to understand how actors from different decision levels and sectors are represented, and which interests they follow. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with local stakeholders, but also cantonal and national actors. The network analysis confirmed our hypothesis of strong fragmentation: we found little collaboration between the water supply and wastewater sector (confirming horizontal fragmentation), and few ties between local, cantonal, and national actors (confirming vertical fragmentation). Infrastructure planning is clearly dominated by engineers and local authorities. Little importance is placed on longer-term strategic objectives and integrated catchment planning, but this was perceived as more important in a second analysis going beyond typical questions of stakeholder analysis. We conclude that linking a stakeholder analysis, comprising rarely asked questions, with a rigorous social network analysis is very fruitful and generates complementary results. This combination gave us deeper insight into the socio-political-engineering world of water infrastructure planning that is of vital importance to our well-being.
Lienert, J.; Schnetzer, F.; Ingold, K. (2013) Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes, Journal of Environmental Management, 125, 134-148, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.052, Institutional Repository

Umweltfolgenabschätzung und Leistungsbeurteilung

Comparing multi-criteria decision analysis and integrated assessment to support long-term water supply planning

We compare the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)–or more precisely, models used in multi-attribute value theory (MAVT)–to integrated assessment (IA) models for supporting long-term water supply planning in a small town case study in Switzerland. They are used to evaluate thirteen system scale water supply alternatives in four future scenarios regarding forty-four objectives, covering technical, social, environmental, and economic aspects. The alternatives encompass both conventional and unconventional solutions and differ regarding technical, spatial and organizational characteristics. This paper focuses on the impact assessment and final evaluation step of the structured MCDA decision support process. We analyze the performance of the alternatives for ten stakeholders. We demonstrate the implications of model assumptions by comparing two IA and three MAVT evaluation model layouts of different complexity. For this comparison, we focus on the validity (ranking stability), desirability (value), and distinguishability (value range) of the alternatives given the five model layouts. These layouts exclude or include stakeholder preferences and uncertainties. Even though all five led us to identify the same best alternatives, they did not produce identical rankings. We found that the MAVT-type models provide higher distinguishability and a more robust basis for discussion than the IA-type models. The needed complexity of the model, however, should be determined based on the intended use of the model within the decision support process. The best-performing alternatives had consistently strong performance for all stakeholders and future scenarios, whereas the current water supply system was outperformed in all evaluation layouts. The best-performing alternatives comprise proactive pipe rehabilitation, adapted firefighting provisions, and decentralized water storage and/or treatment. We present recommendations for possible ways of improving water supply planning in the case study and beyond.
Scholten, L.; Maurer, M.; Lienert, J. (2017) Comparing multi-criteria decision analysis and integrated assessment to support long-term water supply planning, PLoS One, 12(5), e0176663 (30 pp.), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176663, Institutional Repository

Combining expert knowledge and local data for improved service life modeling of water supply networks

The presented approach aims to overcome the scarce data problem in service life modeling of water networks by combining subjective expert knowledge and local replacement data. A procedure to elicit imprecise quantile estimates of survival functions from experts, considering common cognitive biases, was developed and applied. The individual expert priors of the parameters of the service life distribution are obtained by regression over the stated distribution quantiles and aggregated into a single prior distribution. Furthermore, a likelihood function for the commonly encountered censored and truncated pipe replacement data is formulated. The suitability of the suggested Bayesian approach based on elicitation data from eight experts and real network data is demonstrated. Robust parameter estimates could be derived in data situations where frequentist maximum likelihood estimation is unsatisfactory, and to show how the consideration of imprecision and in-between-variance of experts improves posterior inference.
Scholten, L.; Scheidegger, A.; Reichert, P.; Maurer, M. (2013) Combining expert knowledge and local data for improved service life modeling of water supply networks, Environmental Modelling and Software, 42, 1-16, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.11.013, Institutional Repository

Environmental toxicology and risk assessment of pharmaceuticals from hospital wastewater

In this paper, we evaluated the ecotoxicological potential of the 100 pharmaceuticals expected to occur in highest quantities in the wastewater of a general hospital and a psychiatric center in Switzerland. We related the toxicity data to predicted concentrations in different wastewater streams to assess the overall risk potential for different scenarios, including conventional biological pretreatment in the hospital and urine source separation. The concentrations in wastewater were estimated with pharmaceutical usage information provided by the hospitals and literature data on human excretion into feces and urine. Environmental concentrations in the effluents of the exposure scenarios were predicted by estimating dilution in sewers and with literature data on elimination during wastewater treatment. Effect assessment was performed using quantitative structure-activity relationships because experimental ecotoxicity data were only available for less than 20% of the 100 pharmaceuticals with expected highest loads. As many pharmaceuticals are acids or bases, a correction for the speciation was implemented in the toxicity prediction model.
The lists of Top-100 pharmaceuticals were distinctly different between the two hospital types with only 37 pharmaceuticals overlapping in both datasets. 31 Pharmaceuticals in the general hospital and 42 pharmaceuticals in the psychiatric center had a risk quotient above 0.01 and thus contributed to the mixture risk quotient. However, together they constituted only 14% (hospital) and 30% (psychiatry) of the load of pharmaceuticals. Hence, medical consumption data alone are insufficient predictors of environmental risk. The risk quotients were dominated by amiodarone, ritonavir, clotrimazole, and diclofenac. Only diclofenac is well researched in ecotoxicology, while amiodarone, ritonavir, and clotrimazole have no or very limited experimental fate or toxicity data available. The presented computational analysis thus helps setting priorities for further testing.
Separate treatment of hospital wastewater would reduce the pharmaceutical load of wastewater treatment plants, and the risk from the newly identified priority pharmaceuticals. However, because high-risk pharmaceuticals are excreted mainly with feces, urine source separation is not a viable option for reducing the risk potential from hospital wastewater, while a sorption step could be beneficial.
Escher, B. I.; Baumgartner, R.; Koller, M.; Treyer, K.; Lienert, J.; McArdell, C. S. (2011) Environmental toxicology and risk assessment of pharmaceuticals from hospital wastewater, Water Research, 45(1), 75-92, doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.08.019, Institutional Repository

Erhebung und Modellierung von Präferenzen

Preference change in stakeholder group-decision processes in the public sector: extent, causes and implications

Public decisions are typically related to large investments leaving long legacies. We should therefore strive for wide societal agreement regarding such decisions, which meet the diversity of preferences between stakeholders and over time. But if, how and why do stakeholder preferences change over time? In decision analysis, these questions received little attention. We explored them using three real-world public decision processes, based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). We used repeatedly elicited ranking of objectives over time. These were obtained during three to five moderated workshops we organised several months apart (total N = 200 questionnaires, and 100 stakeholders). We analysed individual and aggregated (group) preferences, their changes and potential drivers including demographic and experience variables. We also analysed the effect of preference evolution on the performance of decision-alternatives with MCDA over time. We found that stakeholder preferences often changed over time, both on an individual and group level. These changes did not systematically diminish over time, but some convergence of preferences was observed for stakeholders who repeatedly participated in workshops. High-ranking objectives were relatively stable and similar between stakeholders. While preference changes could not be explained by demographics and personal experiences, repeated interaction with the decision problem might play a role. Neither the observed disagreement between stakeholders, nor the preference changes over time affected the best and worst performing alternatives in our decision problems. Thus, despite changing stakeholder preferences over time, public decision-makers can contrive robust solutions to complex public decision problems in the present.
Kuller, M.; Beutler, P.; Lienert, J. (2023) Preference change in stakeholder group-decision processes in the public sector: extent, causes and implications, European Journal of Operational Research, 308, 1268-1285, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2022.12.001, Institutional Repository

Gamified environmental multi‐criteria decision analysis: information on objectives and range insensitivity bias

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is well suited to address complex public policy problems but could benefit from new tools to involve many laypeople. Online information on specialized topics could be more engaging by including game elements. This paper reports an experiment that assessed a gamified interface to (1) inform laypeople about the objectives to consider in wastewater management decisions, (2) assist them in constructing range-based preferences, and (3) provide a positive experience. We measured the effects with (1) a knowledge pre- and posttest, (2) the elicited weights and a range sensitivity index, and (3) an experience questionnaire based on self-determination theory. Answers from 174 participants indicated that participants learnt about the objectives and constructed preferences in both the gamified and control treatments. However, in neither were weights sufficiently adjusted. Our gamification making the ranges salient did not help overcome this bias. Both treatments were experienced as neutral to positive, the gamified being more entertaining. We discuss implications: if gamification of tools for participatory decision-making is to be promoted, it requires further research. Range insensitivity remains an unresolved bias in MCDA.
Aubert, A. H.; Lienert, J.; von Helversen, B. (2023) Gamified environmental multi‐criteria decision analysis: information on objectives and range insensitivity bias, International Transactions in Operational Research, 30(6), 3738-3770, doi:10.1111/itor.13206, Institutional Repository

Gamified online survey to elicit citizens' preferences and enhance learning for environmental decisions

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) requires a critical step, namely to elicit individual preferences. On the basis of learning theories, we formalize preference construction as learning about facts and values, and as a process; we also conceptualize an online preference elicitation survey that offers learning loops to increase factual learning and support preference construction. Another originality is gamification. Game elements (a narrative and non-player characters as motivational affordance) keep respondents engaged in the demanding task of weight elicitation. Our tool enables broad public participation in MCDA, allowing reliable online preference elicitation. The survey concept was tested with 107 students and a control treatment. Quantitative and qualitative data indicate that the concept works. Participants’ factual knowledge increased. The survey helped students to learn about their own preferences concerning the importance of objectives. The practical implication is that weighting can be reliably elicited by online surveys. Participants reported a positive experience; further ways to improve it are thoroughly discussed.
Aubert, A. H.; Lienert, J. (2019) Gamified online survey to elicit citizens' preferences and enhance learning for environmental decisions, Environmental Modelling and Software, 111, 1-12, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.09.013, Institutional Repository

Identifying non-additive multi-attribute value functions based on uncertain indifference statements

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) requires an accurate representation of the preferences of decision-makers, for instance in the form of a multi-attribute value function. Typically, additivity or other stringent assumptions about the preferences are made to facilitate elicitation by assuming a simple parametric form. When relaxing such assumptions, parameters cannot be elicited easily with standard methods. We present a novel approach for identifying multi-attribute value functions which can have any shape. As preference information indifference statements are used that can be elicited by trade-off questions. Instead of asking one indifference statement for each pair of attributes, we ask for multiple trade-offs at different points in the attribute space. This allows inferring parameters of complex value functions despite the simplicity of the preference statements. Parameters are estimated by taking into account preference and elicitation uncertainty with a probabilistic model. Statistical inference supports identifying the most adequate preference model out of several candidate models through quantifying the uncertainty and assessing the need for non-additivity. The approach is elaborated for determining value functions by hierarchical aggregation. We apply it to an assessment of the ecological state of rivers, which is used to support environmental management decisions in Switzerland. Preference models of four experts were quantified, confirming the feasibility of the approach and the relevance of considering non-additive functions. The method suggests a promising direction for improving the representation of preferences.
Haag, F.; Lienert, J.; Schuwirth, N.; Reichert, P. (2019) Identifying non-additive multi-attribute value functions based on uncertain indifference statements, Omega: the international journal of management science, 85, 49-67, doi:10.1016/j.omega.2018.05.011, Institutional Repository

Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS

We used two types of preference elicitation methods based on multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) for a wastewater infrastructure decision in Switzerland. We aimed to register the implementation impacts of two preference elicitation philosophies (aggregation, disaggregation) in a large, real-world case and give guidance on these elicitation approaches for practitioners. We conducted two series of face-to-face inter- views with the same ten. The first interview set used direct aggregation preference elicitation methods, which decomposed an additive value model into the elicitation of weights (SMART/SWING-variant) and marginal value functions (bi-section method). In the second interview series, indirect disaggregation was used, based on UTAGMS . The weights and marginal value functions for 19 objectives were later simulta- neously inferred with linear programming from pairwise comparisons of hypothetical alternatives. One aim was to design the UTAGMS comparisons for many objectives. Further, we aimed to identify differ- ences and commonalities of the two methods concerning the elicited preferences, the MAVT evaluation results of six real-world wastewater infrastructure alternatives, and the stakeholders’ and analysts’ feed- backs. Similar best alternatives indicate convergence of the two elicitation methods. This demonstrates the applicability of the UTAGMS elicitation procedure to a very complex decision problem. However, the two elicitation methods were perceived differently by the respondents and required different effort from the analysts. For individual stakeholders, preferences were sometimes rather different between the inter- views, which could be largely explained by the constructive nature of preference formation. This indicates the importance of supporting stakeholder learning in the application of MCDA.
Zheng, J.; Lienert, J. (2018) Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS, European Journal of Operational Research, 267(1), 273-287, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.018, Institutional Repository

Four common simplifications of multi-criteria decision analysis do not hold for river rehabilitation

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.
Langhans, S. D.; Lienert, J. (2016) Four common simplifications of multi-criteria decision analysis do not hold for river rehabilitation, PLoS One, 11(3), e0150695 (27 pp.), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150695, Institutional Repository

Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making

We used a multi-method and repeated elicitation approach across different stakeholder groups to explore possible differences in the outcome of an environmental decision. We compared different preference elicitation procedures based on Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) over time for a water infrastructure decision in Switzerland. We implemented the SWING and SMART/SWING weight elicitation methods and also compared results with earlier stakeholder interviews. In all procedures, the weights for environmental protection and well-functioning (waste-)water systems were higher than for cost reduction. The SMART/SWING variant produced statistically significantly different weights than SWING. Weights changed over time with both elicitation methods. Weights were more stable with the SWING method, which was also perceived as slightly more difficult than the SMART/SWING variant. We checked whether the difference in weights produced by the two elicitation methods and the difference in their stability affects the ranking of six alternatives. Overall an unconventional decentralized alternative ranked first or second in 92 percent of all elicitation procedures, which were the online surveys or interviews. For practical decision-making, using multiple methods across different stakeholder groups and repeating elicitation can increase our confidence that the results reflect the true opinions of the decision makers and stakeholders.
Lienert, J.; Duygan, M.; Zheng, J. (2016) Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making, European Journal of Operational Research, 253(3), 746-760, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.03.010, Institutional Repository

Multi-kriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse: Konzepte, Methoden, Unsicherheit

Lienert, J. (2022) App helps with difficult decisions (App hilft bei schwierigen Entscheiden). Interview by Barbara Vonarburg with Judit Lienert, Eawag News, April 2022.

ValueDecisions, a web app to support decisions with conflicting objectives, multiple stakeholders, and uncertainty

Complex environmental and public policy decisions profit from structured procedures such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). To support such decisions, the new open source application ValueDecisions provides advanced analysis and visualization with no programming expected from users. Based on multi-attribute value theory (MAVT), it offers analysis for decisions with conflicting and interacting objectives, multiple stakeholders, and uncertain consequences of options. Programmed in R, the shiny web framework makes it accessible via a graphical user interface in the browser. We exemplify using ValueDecisions for a wastewater infrastructure planning case in the Paris region. We surveyed preferences of 655 citizens and conducted sensitivity analysis of preference parameters. The best management options were robust across a range of preference profiles and assumptions. To evaluate the app, we developed a novel usability test based on the ISO standard for software quality and surveyed students using ValueDecisions for case studies.
Haag, F.; Aubert, A. H.; Lienert, J. (2022) ValueDecisions, a web app to support decisions with conflicting objectives, multiple stakeholders, and uncertainty, Environmental Modelling and Software, 150, 105361 (19 pp.), doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105361, Institutional Repository

Integrating uncertainty of preferences and predictions in decision models: an application to regional wastewater planning

Decision-making in environmental management requires eliciting preferences of stakeholders and predicting outcomes of decision alternatives. Usually, preferences and predictions are both uncertain. Uncertainty of predictions can be tackled by multi-attribute utility theory, but the uncertainty of preferences remains a challenge. We demonstrate an approach for including both uncertainties in a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), using utility theory and the concept of expected expected utility. For a decision regarding a regional merger of wastewater infrastructure in Switzerland, we constructed preference models for four stakeholders. These models also allowed for non-additive interactions between objectives. We evaluated the performance of eleven decision alternatives for which we predicted potential outcomes. Even though uncertainties were high, we could draw conclusions based on the expected expected utility of alternatives. Building a pipeline to discharge treated wastewater to a larger river emerged as a potential consensus alternative to mitigate the problem of micropollutants in a small stream. We investigated the robustness of the findings with sensitivity analysis regarding the preference parameters and the included objectives. In their actual decision, the stakeholders partly preferred other alternatives than those proposed by the model. Their choices could be explained by reduced decision models in which only few objectives were included. This may indicate the use of simplified choice heuristics by the stakeholders. The presented approach is feasible for supporting other difficult environmental or engineering decisions in practice, for which we give a number of recommendations.
Haag, F.; Reichert, P.; Maurer, M.; Lienert, J. (2019) Integrating uncertainty of preferences and predictions in decision models: an application to regional wastewater planning, Journal of Environmental Management, 252, 109652 (16 pp.), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109652, Institutional Repository

A review of water-related serious games to specify use in environmental Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Serious games and gamification are nowadays pervasive. They are used to communicate about science and sometimes to involve citizens in science (e.g. citizen science). Concurrently, environmental decision analysis is challenged by the high cognitive load of the decision-making process and the possible biases threatening the rationality assumptions. Difficult decision-making processes can result in incomplete preference construction, and are generally limited to few participants. We reviewed 43 serious games and gamified applications related to water. We covered the broad diversity of serious games, which could be explained by the still unsettled terminology in the research area of gamification and serious gaming. We discuss how existing games could benefit early steps of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), including problem structuring, stakeholder analysis, defining objectives, and exploring alternatives. We argue that no existing game allows for preference elicitation; one of the most challenging steps of MCDA. We propose many research opportunities for behavioral operational research.
Aubert, A. H.; Bauer, R.; Lienert, J. (2018) A review of water-related serious games to specify use in environmental Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Environmental Modelling and Software, 105, 64-78, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.03.023, Institutional Repository

The conceptual foundation of environmental decision support

Environmental decision support intends to use the best available scientific knowledge to help decision makers find and evaluate management alternatives. The goal of this process is to achieve the best fulfillment of societal objectives. This requires a careful analysis of (i) how scientific knowledge can be represented and quantified, (ii) how societal preferences can be described and elicited, and (iii) how these concepts can best be used to support communication with authorities, politicians, and the public in environmental management. The goal of this paper is to discuss key requirements for a conceptual framework to address these issues and to suggest how these can best be met. We argue that a combination of probability theory and scenario planning with multi-attribute utility theory fulfills these requirements, and discuss adaptations and extensions of these theories to improve their application for supporting environmental decision making. With respect to (i) we suggest the use of intersubjective probabilities, if required extended to imprecise probabilities, to describe the current state of scientific knowledge. To address (ii), we emphasize the importance of value functions, in addition to utilities, to support decisions under risk. We discuss the need for testing "non-standard" value aggregation techniques, the usefulness of flexibility of value functions regarding attribute data availability, the elicitation of value functions for sub-objectives from experts, and the consideration of uncertainty in value and utility elicitation. With respect to (iii), we outline a well-structured procedure for transparent environmental decision support that is based on a clear separation of scientific prediction and societal valuation. We illustrate aspects of the suggested methodology by its application to river management in general and with a small, didactical case study on spatial river rehabilitation prioritization.
Reichert, P.; Langhans, S. D.; Lienert, J.; Schuwirth, N. (2015) The conceptual foundation of environmental decision support, Journal of Environmental Management, 154, 316-332, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.053, Institutional Repository

Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – an application to water supply infrastructure planning

We present a novel approach for practically tackling uncertainty in preference elicitation and predictive modeling to support complex multi-criteria decisions based on multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT). A simplified two-step elicitation procedure consisting of an online survey and face-to-face interviews is followed by an extensive uncertainty analysis. This covers uncertainty of the preference components (marginal value and utility functions, hierarchical aggregation functions, aggregation parameters) and the attribute predictions. Context uncertainties about future socio-economic developments are captured by combining MAUT with scenario planning. We perform a global sensitivity analysis (GSA) to assess the contribution of single uncertain preference parameters to the uncertainty of the ranking of alternatives. This is exemplified for sustainable water infrastructure planning in a case study in Switzerland. We compare 11 water supply alternatives ranging from conventional water supply systems to novel technologies and management schemes regarding 44 objectives. Their performance is assessed for four future scenarios and 10 stakeholders from different backgrounds and decision-making levels. Despite uncertainty in the ranking of alternatives, potential best and worst solutions could be identified. We demonstrate that a priori assumptions such as linear value functions or additive aggregation can result in misleading recommendations, unless thoroughly checked during preference elicitation and modeling. We suggest GSA to focus elicitation on most sensitive preference parameters. Our GSA results indicate that output uncertainty can be considerably reduced by additional elicitation of few parameters, e.g. the overall risk attitude and aggregation functions at higher-level nodes. Here, rough value function elicitation was sufficient, thereby substantially reducing elicitation time.
Scholten, L.; Schuwirth, N.; Reichert, P.; Lienert, J. (2015) Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – an application to water supply infrastructure planning, European Journal of Operational Research, 242(1), 243-260, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.09.044, Institutional Repository

How to make river assessments comparable: a demonstration for hydromorphology

River monitoring and assessment programs are important tools to quantify the condition of river ecosystems, identify deficits, and provide preliminary indication of how to improve them. But, they are limited in delivering comparable assessment results across national or transnational borders, aggregating site-specific assessments into broader scale assessments, and supporting river management decisions. We present a multi-criteria decision analysis approach for improving the comparability of ecological assessment methods of different origin and for combining these assessments into a joint procedure. The approach consists of seven consecutive steps. The most central ones concern the hierarchical allocation of ecological assessment endpoints, and the harmonization of the scoring procedure of attributes (ecological indicators or assets) to a common scale from 0 to 1. We demonstrate the approach integrating three programs developed to assess the hydromorphological river condition in Switzerland, Germany, and the USA. In our example, the integrated assessment produces comparable results for the whole range from natural to impacted rivers, while data continuity with original assessments was maintained. Our approach provides a common assessment standard due to the definition of the minimum amount of information required, is flexible regarding measurement and assessment endpoints, and bridges the gap between river quality assessment and management.
Langhans, S. D.; Lienert, J.; Schuwirth, N.; Reichert, P. (2013) How to make river assessments comparable: a demonstration for hydromorphology, Ecological Indicators, 32, 264-275, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.027, Institutional Repository

Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: a case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater

Decision making in public and political contexts can be complex. Multi-attribute value/utility theory (MAVT/MAUT) can support such decision processes by providing a transparent framework that helps focusing on objectives and corresponding degrees of achievement by different alternatives.
Eliciting preferences with MAVT/MAUT can be time consuming and cognitively challenging. Therefore, it might not be feasible to elicit full preference functions with standard methods. To deal with this problem, we suggest a simplified elicitation procedure that combines (a) the elicitation of values instead of utilities at lower-levels of the objectives hierarchy and conversion to utilities to consider risk attitudes at appropriate higher levels, (b) the use of linear value functions for sub-objectives with minor effects on the overall value, and (c) sensitivity analyses to check the robustness of results regarding these assumptions and the elicitation process in general. Furthermore, we developed a modified Swing procedure ("Reversed Swing2) to elicit weights for cases in which the hypothetical alternatives of the conventional Swing technique are unrealistic.
We applied this procedure to a case study on pharmaceutical removal from wastewater of a typical Swiss hospital involving 13 stakeholders. Aim of the interdisciplinary research group was to assess a large bundle of combinations of novel point source measures. The ultimate policy objective was to develop consensus solutions which are acceptable to all important stakeholder groups. We hope that the suggested simplified procedure stimulates the application of transparent and conceptually satisfying decision support methods in environmental management, which is needed to justify policy decisions to the public.
Schuwirth, N.; Reichert, P.; Lienert, J. (2012) Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: a case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater, European Journal of Operational Research, 220(2), 472-483, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.055, Institutional Repository

Multi-kriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse: Anwendungsbeispiele

Lienert, J.; Andersson, J.; Hofmann, D.; Silva Pinto, F.; Kuller, M. (2022) How to co-design a flood early warning system (FEWS) for West Africa, Water Science Policy, (4 pp.), doi:10.53014/CBJJ5560, Institutional Repository

Innovative online survey about sustainable wastewater management: what young Swiss citizens know and value

Investigating wastewater management matters: in many OECD countries, the conventional centralized system is reaching its limits. Alternative decentralized options exist. Some directly affect citizens with in-house wastewater treatment. Involving citizens in decision processes would legitimate the outcome and facilitate implementation. However, citizen participation is challenging because they are numerous, and need to learn about the topic and construct their opinion. To include citizens, we propose an innovative online survey based on Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT). Citizens receive value-focused information, and can communicate their preferences, captured as weights assigned to objectives. We collected quantitative and qualitative data, and elicited preferences from 184 young Swiss citizens, who will have to live with the decision outcome. In addition to reporting on insights for wastewater management, we assessed our survey, i.e. whether respondents learnt about the topic, constructed preferences, and understood the requirement to think in terms of objectives. Water quality and health protection mattered the most. The objectives directly concerning the respondents (time demand, attractiveness) were the least important. The best-ranked option in the subsequent Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis was a decentralized source separating system with dry toilets. Respondents were unaware that such decentralized options exist, indicating that learning about the topic occurred. Preferences were mostly newly constructed from no opinion, or pre-existing ones were reinforced. Our value-focused online survey helped citizens to understand the complex decision and construct their preferences. Swiss decision-makers, and beyond, should not be scared of a paradigm shift in wastewater management: the young generation seems ready to decentralize.
Aubert, A. H.; Schmid, S.; Beutler, P.; Lienert, J. (2022) Innovative online survey about sustainable wastewater management: what young Swiss citizens know and value, Environmental Science and Policy, 137, 323-335, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.08.018, Institutional Repository

The role of multi-criteria decision analysis in a transdisciplinary process: co-developing a flood forecasting system in western Africa

Climate change is projected to increase flood risks in western Africa. In the FANFAR project, a pre-operational flood early warning system (FEWS) for western Africa was co-designed in workshops with 50–60 stakeholders from 17 countries, adopting multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). We aimed at (i) designing a FEWS with western African stakeholders using MCDA and (ii) evaluating participatory MCDA as a transdisciplinary process. To achieve the first aim (i), we used MCDA methods for problem structuring and preference elicitation in workshops. Problem structuring included stakeholder analysis, creating 10 objectives to be achieved by the FANFAR FEWS and designing 11 possible FEWS configurations. Experts predicted FEWS configuration performance, which we integrated with stakeholder preferences. We tested MCDA results in sensitivity analyses. Three FEWSs showed good performance, despite uncertainty, and were robust across different preferences. For stakeholders it was most important that the FEWS produces accurate, clear, timely, and accessible flood risk information. To achieve the second aim (ii), we clustered common characteristics of collaborative governance frameworks from the sustainability science and transdisciplinary literature. Our framework emphasizes issues crucial to the earth systems sciences, such as uncertainty and integrating interdisciplinary knowledge. MCDA can address both well. Other strengths of MCDA are co-producing knowledge with stakeholders and providing a consistent methodology with unambiguous, shared results. Participatory MCDA including problem structuring can contribute to co-designing a project but does not achieve later phases of transdisciplinary processes well, such as co-disseminating and evaluating results. We encourage colleagues to use MCDA and the proposed framework for evaluating transdisciplinary hydrology research that engages with stakeholders and society.
Lienert, J.; Andersson, J. C. M.; Hofmann, D.; Silva Pinto, F.; Kuller, M. (2022) The role of multi-criteria decision analysis in a transdisciplinary process: co-developing a flood forecasting system in western Africa, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 26(11), 2899-2922, doi:10.5194/hess-26-2899-2022, Institutional Repository

Potenzial dezentraler Abwassersysteme

Werterhalt und Bewirtschaftung von Kanalisation und ARA können kleine Gemeinden vor Herausforderungen stellen. Es gibt Alternativen, aber lohnen sich diese? Zwei Gemeinden wurden bei der strategischen Planung für ihr neues Abwassersystem unterstützt. Viele Ziele wurden als entscheidungsrelevant identifiziert, insbesondere Umweltschutzziele. Es zeigte sich, dass dezentrale Technologien mit Stoffstromseparierung die Anforderungen häufig besser erfüllen können als konventionelle Abwassersysteme.
Beutler, P.; Larsen, T. A.; Maurer, M.; Staufer, P.; Lienert, J. (2021) Potenzial dezentraler Abwassersysteme, Aqua & Gas, 101(1), 66-75, Institutional Repository

A mixed-methods approach to strategic planning for multi-benefit regional water infrastructure

Finding regional solutions for water infrastructure and other environmental management challenges requires coordination, communication, and a shared understanding among different stakeholders. To develop a more versatile and collaborative decision-making process for nutrient management in the San Francisco Bay Area, we used a mixed-methods approach consisting of stakeholder analysis with cluster analysis, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and scenario planning. These methods allowed us to identify agreements and disagreements in stakeholder objectives and preferences, clarify ways in which different options could meet the goals of diverse stakeholders, and elucidate how scientific uncertainty about technical performance and future conditions could affect management strategies. Results of the analysis indicate that several non-conventional nutrient management options like constructed wetlands and increased water recycling for irrigation met the goals of many stakeholders under a variety of future scenarios. A comparison of MCDA results with a more traditional 'cost-efficiency' measure (i.e., optimizing for the lowest cost per mass of nutrients removed) revealed little correlation between the two methods for stakeholders who expressed a preference for co-benefits of management options such as increased water supply and nutrient recovery for fertilizer use. The method also allowed us to identify key areas of disagreement (e.g., the relative importance of constructing infrastructure that would not be affected by sea level rise) that should find regulatory or professional consensus before advancing with decision-making. This mixed-methods approach is time-consuming and requires specific expertise that is not always available to stakeholders. The development of more efficient preference elicitation and interaction procedures would increase the likelihood that decision-makers would make the extra effort required to use this potentially powerful method. Nonetheless, the mixed-methods approach had several important advantages over more traditional strategic planning methods including its ability to stimulate discussions amongst stakeholders who do not regularly interact, support collaborative planning, and encourage multi-benefit solutions.
Harris-Lovett, S.; Lienert, J.; Sedlak, D. (2019) A mixed-methods approach to strategic planning for multi-benefit regional water infrastructure, Journal of Environmental Management, 233, 218-237, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.112, Institutional Repository

A scenario-based MCDA framework for wastewater infrastructure planning under uncertainty

Wastewater infrastructure management is increasingly important because of urbanization, environmental pollutants, aging infrastructures, and climate change. We propose a scenario-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to compare different infrastructure alternatives in terms of their sustainability. These range from the current centralized system to semi- and fully decentralized options. Various sources of uncertainty are considered, including external socio-economic uncertainty captured by future scenarios, uncertainty in predicting outcomes of alternatives, and incomplete preferences of stakeholders. Stochastic Multi-criteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA) with Monte Carlo simulation is performed, and rank acceptability indices help identify robust alternatives. We propose step-wise local sensitivity analysis, which is useful for practitioners to effectively elicit preferences and identify major sources of uncertainty. The approach is demonstrated in a Swiss case study where ten stakeholders are involved throughout. Their preferences are quantitatively elicited by combining an online questionnaire with face-to-face interviews. The trade-off questions reveal a high concern about environmental and an unexpectedly low importance of economic criteria. This results in a surprisingly good ranking of high-tech decentralized wastewater alternatives using urine source separation for most stakeholders in all scenarios. Combining scenario planning and MCDA proves useful, as the performance of wastewater infrastructure systems is indeed sensitive to socio-economic boundary conditions and the other sources of uncertainty. The proposed sensitivity analysis suggests that a simplified elicitation procedure is sufficient in many cases. Elicitation of more information such as detailed marginal value functions should only follow if the sensitivity analysis finds this necessary. Moreover, the uncertainty of rankings can be considerably reduced by better predictions of the outcomes of alternatives. Although the results are case based, the proposed decision framework is generalizable to other decision contexts.
Zheng, J.; Egger, C.; Lienert, J. (2016) A scenario-based MCDA framework for wastewater infrastructure planning under uncertainty, Journal of Environmental Management, 183(3), 895-908, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.027, Institutional Repository

Wasserinfrastrukturen nachhaltig in eine unsichere Zukunft führen

Die Wasserversorgung und Abwasserentsorgung sind Generationenbauwerke mit langer Lebensdauer und entsprechend langen Planungshorizonten. Wie können wir ihre Leistungen nachhaltig in die Zukunft führen? Wie gehen wir mit den Unsicherheiten um? Wie beziehen wir die Nachhaltigkeit quantitativ in unsere Planungsansätze ein? Im Rahmen des nationalen Forschungsprogramms 61 ging die Eawag diesen Fragen nach.
Maurer, M.; Lienert, J. (2014) Wasserinfrastrukturen nachhaltig in eine unsichere Zukunft führen, Eawag News [dtsch. Ausg.], 1-8, Institutional Repository

Multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse. Neue Ansätze für langfristige Infrastrukturplanung in der Wasserver- und -entsorgung

Im NFP-61-Forschungsprojekt «Langfristige Planung nachhaltiger Wasserinfrastrukturen» der Eawag wurden für die Planung der Wasserver- und Abwasserentsorgung unterschiedliche Alternativen miteinander verglichen. Die multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse berücksichtigt dabei die Präferenzen der Akteure und die Szenarienanalyse testet die Robustheit der Alternativen gegenüber unsicheren Zukunftsentwicklungen. Dieser neue Ansatz ergänzt die generelle Wasserversorgungsplanung (GWP) sowie die generelle Entwässerungsplanung (GEP) und bringt die Infrastrukturplanung auf eine nachhaltige Basis.
Scholten, L.; Egger, C.; Zheng, J.; Lienert, J. (2014) Multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse. Neue Ansätze für langfristige Infrastrukturplanung in der Wasserver- und -entsorgung, Aqua & Gas, 94(5), 62-69, Institutional Repository

Strategic rehabilitation planning of piped water networks using multi-criteria decision analysis

To overcome the difficulties of strategic asset management of water distribution networks, a pipe failure and a rehabilitation model are combined to predict the long term performance of rehabilitation strategies. Bayesian parameter estimation is performed to calibrate the failure and replacement model based on a prior distribution inferred from three large water utilities in Switzerland. Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and scenario planning build the framework for evaluating 18 strategic rehabilitation alternatives under future uncertainty. Outcomes for three fundamental objectives (low costs, high reliability, and high intergenerational equity) are assessed. Exploitation of stochastic dominance concepts helps to identify twelve non dominated alternatives and local sensitivity analysis of stakeholder preferences is used to rank them under four scenarios. Strategies with annual replacement of 1.5 2% of the network perform reasonably well under all scenarios. In contrast, the commonly used reactive replacement is not recommendable unless cost is the only relevant objective. Exemplified for a small Swiss water utility, this approach can readily be adapted to support strategic asset management for any utility size and based on objectives and preferences that matter to the respective decision makers.
Scholten, L.; Scheidegger, A.; Reichert, P.; Mauer, M.; Lienert, J. (2014) Strategic rehabilitation planning of piped water networks using multi-criteria decision analysis, Water Research, 49(1), 124-143, doi:10.1016/j.watres.2013.11.017, Institutional Repository

Multiple-criteria decision analysis reveals high stakeholder preference to remove pharmaceuticals from hospital wastewater

Point-source measures have been suggested to decrease pharmaceuticals in water bodies. We analyzed 68 and 50 alternatives, respectively, for a typical Swiss general and psychiatric hospital to decrease pharmaceutical discharge. Technical alternatives included reverse osmosis, ozonation, and activated carbon; organizational alternatives included urine separation. To handle this complex decision, we used Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and combined expert predictions (e.g., costs, pharmaceutical mass flows, ecotoxicological risk, pathogen removal) with subjective preference-valuations from 26 stakeholders (authorities, hospital-internal actors, experts). The general hospital contributed ca. 38% to the total pharmaceutical load at the wastewater treatment plant, the psychiatry contributed 5%. For the general hospital, alternatives removing all pharmaceuticals (especially reverse osmosis, or vacuum-toilets and incineration), performed systematically better than the status quo or urine separation, despite higher costs. They now require closer scrutiny. To remove X-ray contrast agents, introducing roadbags is promising. For the psychiatry with a lower pharmaceutical load, costs were more critical. Stakeholder feedback concerning MCDA was very positive, especially because the results were robust across different stakeholder-types. Our MCDA results provide insight into an important water protection issue: implementing measures to decrease pharmaceuticals will likely meet acceptance. Hospital point-sources merit consideration if the trade-off between costs and pharmaceutical removal is reasonable.
Lienert, J.; Koller, M.; Konrad, J.; McArdell, C. S.; Schuwirth, N. (2011) Multiple-criteria decision analysis reveals high stakeholder preference to remove pharmaceuticals from hospital wastewater, Environmental Science and Technology, 45(9), 3848-3857, doi:10.1021/es1031294, Institutional Repository

Charting a path for innovative toilet technology using multicriteria decision analysis

Practical and theoretically sound methods for analyzing innovative environmental technologies are needed to inform public and private decisions regarding research and development, risk management, and stakeholder communication. By integrating scientific assessments with a characterization of values, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) supports the ranking of alternative technology pathways on the basis of technical, financial, and social concerns. We applied MCDA to evaluate the use of NoMix urine separating toilets for managing environmental risk and postponing expensive upgrades to a large wastewater treatment plant near Zürich, Switzerland. Results indicate that, given current priorities, no single, fixed course of action (including the status quo) will be desirable to all stakeholders over the considered time horizon. However, a path forward is suggested that is not significantly disadvantageous to any stakeholder now and leaves open future options, allowing society to achieve overall greater benefits if priorities change, new environmental risks are revealed, or technology improves. While our analysis focuses on a particular catchment in Switzerland, many communities worldwide are faced with an aging and inefficient wastewater treatment infrastructure while also experiencing growth and development. Our framework can help these communities balance the conflicting objectives of diverse stakeholders and gain insight into the role that urine separation can play in transitioning to a more comprehensive and sustainable urban water management system.
Borsuk, M. E.; Maurer, M.; Lienert, J.; Larsen, T. A. (2008) Charting a path for innovative toilet technology using multicriteria decision analysis, Environmental Science and Technology, 42(6), 1855-1862, doi:10.1021/es702184p, Institutional Repository

Andere Methoden für Entscheidungsunterstützung

Creating effective flood warnings: a framework from a critical review

As climate change is intensifying the frequency and severity of floods around the globe, adaptation is increasingly vital. Besides structural measures to mitigate flood risk, non-structural measures are known to be highly effective and low-cost. Such non-structural measures include Flood Early Warning Systems (FEWS). Effective warning creation and dissemination are crucial to successful FEWS. Despite extensive bodies of research that cross the boundaries between disciplines and application domains, systematic understanding of the detailed aspects contributing to the effectiveness of flood warnings is lacking. We systematically review the state-of-the-art in risk perception and warning communication present in academic (and grey) literature for FEWS. We focus on the elements of risk warnings specifically, rather than reviewing the topic of risk communication in general. We start with exploring how personal attributes affect individual risk perception related to flood warnings. We then deconstruct flood warnings into three basic components: content, format and dissemination channel. Most importantly, we found 21 individual elements (options) for these components, each associated with varying levels of support for their effectiveness in literature. Important caveats were identified, such as a lack of research into the speech format and SMS channel. We then describe and visualise the warning creation process, providing a framework for guidance. Accelerating technological advancement necessitates continued research into the effectiveness of novel formats and channels, rendering the currently most widely supported and researched elements increasingly obsolete. Further research is needed to explore the complex interplay between elements, i.e., how do different combinations impact effectiveness? Finally, little is known about the transferability of our findings to Africa, Asia and South America, as industrialised countries dominate the research. We hope our findings will contribute to improved understanding, and support the practice of creating effective flood warnings.
Kuller, M.; Schoenholzer, K.; Lienert, J. (2021) Creating effective flood warnings: a framework from a critical review, Journal of Hydrology, 602, 126708 (16 pp.), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126708, Institutional Repository

Testing fairness principles for public environmental infrastructure decisions

Public infrastructure decisions affect many stakeholders with various benefits and costs. For public decisions, it is crucial that decision-making processes and outcomes are fair. Fairness concepts have rarely been explored in public infrastructure planning. We close this gap for a global issue of growing importance: replacing sewer-based, centralized by decentralized wastewater systems. We empirically study fairness principles in this policy-relevant context, and identify possible influencing factors in a representative online survey of 472 Swiss German residents. In a transition phase, innovative, decentralized pilot wastewater systems are installed in households. We designed two vignettes for this context to test the adhesion to principles of distributive justice—equality, equity, and need—at individual and community levels. A third vignette tests procedural justice with increasing fulfilment of fair process criteria. The results confirm our hypotheses: equity is perceived as fairer than equality at individual and collective levels. Contrary to expectations and literature, need is perceived as even fairer than equity. Procedural justice results confirm literature, e.g., the majority (92%) of respondents deems a policy fair that includes them in decision-making. Only few demographic and explanatory factors are significantly correlated with respondents' fairness perceptions. Although unexpected, this is positive, implying that introducing decentralized wastewater technology can be designed for the entire population independent of characteristics of individuals. Generally, our results confirm literature: fairness perceptions depend on the circumstances. Hence, they should be elicited in the exact application context to be able to enter negotiation processes and provide concrete advice to decision makers.
Schmid, S.; Vetschera, R.; Lienert, J. (2021) Testing fairness principles for public environmental infrastructure decisions, Group Decision and Negotiation, 30, 611-640, doi:10.1007/s10726-021-09725-2, Institutional Repository

Climate change and the willingness to pay to reduce ecological and health risks from wastewater flooding in urban centers and the environment

Climate change scenarios predict an increase of extreme rain events, which will increase the risk of wastewater flooding and of missing legal water quality targets. This study elicits the willingness to pay to reduce ecological and health risks from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in rivers and lakes, and wastewater flooding of residential and commercial zones under the uncertainty of climate change. We implement a discrete choice experiment on a large representative sample of the Swiss population. We find that about 71% of the respondents are willing to pay a higher annual local tax to reduce the risk of CSOs in rivers and lakes. Swiss households strongly value the protection of water bodies, and mostly, the avoidance of high ecological risks and health risks for children related to CSOs in rivers and lakes. Our findings also show that climate change perception has a significant effect on the willingness to pay to reduce these risks. These results are important to support policy makers' decisions on how to deal with emerging risks of climate change in the water sector and where to set priorities.
Veronesi, M.; Chawla, F.; Maurer, M.; Lienert, J. (2014) Climate change and the willingness to pay to reduce ecological and health risks from wastewater flooding in urban centers and the environment, Ecological Economics, 98, 1-10, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.005, Institutional Repository

Meeting the challenges of transdisciplinary knowledge production for sustainable water governance

Increasing pressure on mountain water resources is making it necessary to address water governance issues in a transdisciplinary way. This entails drawing on different disciplinary perspectives, different types of knowledge, and different interests to answer complex governance questions. This study identifies strategies for addressing specific challenges to transdisciplinary knowledge production aiming at sustainable and reflective water governance. The study draws on the experiences of 5 large transdisciplinary water governance research projects conducted in Austria and Switzerland (Alp-Water-Scarce, MontanAqua, Drought-CH, Sustainable Water Infrastructure Planning, and an integrative river management project in the Kamp Valley). Experiences were discussed and systematically analyzed in a workshop and subsequent interviews. These discussions identified 4 important challenges to interactions between scientists and stakeholders—ensuring stakeholder legitimacy, encouraging participation, managing expectations, and preventing misuse of data and research results—and explored strategies used by the projects to meet them. Strategies ranged from key points to be considered in stakeholder selection to measures that enhance trustful relationships and create commitment.
Renner, R.; Schneider, F.; Hohenwallner, D.; Kopeinig, C.; Kruse, S.; Lienert, J.; Link, S.; Muhar, S. (2013) Meeting the challenges of transdisciplinary knowledge production for sustainable water governance, Mountain Research and Development, 33(3), 234-247, doi:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-13-00002.1, Institutional Repository

Decision support in urban water management based on generic scenarios: the example of NoMix technology

Urine source separation (NoMix technology) followed by processing the concentrated nutrient solution has the potential to become a cost-efficient alternative to conventional end-of-pipe nutrient elimination. A choice of processing technologies can only be made for specific scenarios, and there is currently no methodology for analyzing generic situations. In setting up a formalized decision-support methodology (based on STEEPLED analysis), we discuss how to create such generic scenarios, how to couple them with process engineering objectives, how to define the technology requirements, and finally how to produce a realistic subset of technology alternatives. The methodology is tested in five real scenarios. We also touch on the criteria for a final choice of technology taking into account large uncertainties about the performance of real technologies. We conclude that technology development is one of the most important requirements for implementing urine source separation in practice. There is an urgent need to develop cost-efficient processing technologies that satisfy the requirements of stakeholders.
Larsen, T. A.; Maurer, M.; Eggen, R. I. L.; Pronk, W.; Lienert, J. (2010) Decision support in urban water management based on generic scenarios: the example of NoMix technology, Journal of Environmental Management, 91(12), 2676-2687, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.07.032, Institutional Repository

Auszeichnungen

2020

Haag, F., Reichert, P., Maurer, M., Lienert, J. Decision Analysis Society (DAS) of INFORMS Student Paper Award 2020 for the paper: Integrating uncertainties of preferences and predictions in decision models: An application to regional wastewater planning. Journal of Environmental Management 252: 109652.
Paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109652.
Award: https://www.informs.org/Recognizing-Excellence/Community-Prizes/Decision-Analysis-Society/DAS-Student-Paper-Award.

 

2019

Haag, F., Lienert, J., Schuwirth, N, Reichert, P. OMEGA Best Paper Award 2019: Identifying non-additive multi-attribute value functions based on uncertain indifference statements. OMEGA 85: 49-67.
Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048317308204.
Award: http://www.omegajournal.org/authors.html.

 

2019

Marttunen, M., Lienert, J., Belton, V. EURO Award for the Best EJOR Paper. Review: Structuring Problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations. Association of European Operational Research Societies, 30th EURO Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 26.06.2019.
Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221717303880?via%3Dihub.
Award: https://www.euro-online.org/web/pages/1647/eabep-winners-2019.

Lehre

ETH Zürich, Departement Umweltsystemwissenschaften

ETH Zürich, Institut für Umweltingenieurwissenschaften, Professur für Ökologisches Systemdesign