Abteilung Umweltsozialwissenschaften

array(3 items)
   publications => '18693,18410,14264,15205' (23 chars)
   libraryUrl => '' (0 chars)
   layout => '0' (1 chars)

array(4 items)
   0 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=18693, pid=124)
      originalId => protected18693 (integer)
      authors => protected'Marttunen, M.; Haag, F.; Belton, V.; Mustajoki, J.; Lien
         ert, J.' (88 chars)
      title => protected'Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi
         -criteria decision analysis' (103 chars)
      journal => protected'European Journal of Operational Research' (40 chars)
      year => protected2019 (integer)
      volume => protected277 (integer)
      issue => protected'2' (1 chars)
      startpage => protected'604' (3 chars)
      otherpage => protected'620' (3 chars)
      categories => protected'problem structuring; multiple criteria analysis; OR in environment; behaviou
         ral OR' (82 chars)
      description => protected'Building a well-structured objectives hierarchy is central to multi-criteria
          decision analysis (MCDA). However, in the absence of a systematic methodolo
         gy to support the process, this task has been described as "more art than sc
         ience". Objectives hierarchies often tend to become large and constraining t
         he size of a hierarchy can be challenging. This paper proposes and illustrat
         es the use of a set of methods to support the simplification of the hierarch
         ies in contexts that are "data rich" and characterised by many objectives. T
         he aim of using the proposed approach is to support decision analysts in dev
         eloping 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-quantitati
         ve (relevancy analysis) and quantitative (correlation analysis, principal co
         mponent analysis, local sensitivity analysis of weights) methods, used alone
          or in combination, can inform hierarchy development. We evaluate the potent
         ial benefits and challenges of each method and discuss the advantages and di
         sadvantages 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 stakeholder
         s, while correlation analysis can help to identify overlapping objectives, p
         articularly 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 a
         ppropriate structure and content of an objectives hierarchy with the stakeho
         lders involved.' (1763 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'0377-2217' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.039' (26 chars)
      uid => protected18693 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected18693 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected18693 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)
   1 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=18410, pid=124)
      originalId => protected18410 (integer)
      authors => protected'Marttunen, M.; Weber, C.; Åberg, U.; Lienert, J.' (69 chars)
      title => protected'Identifying relevant objectives in environmental management decisions: an ap
         plication to a national monitoring program for river restoration' (140 chars)
      journal => protected'Ecological Indicators' (21 chars)
      year => protected2019 (integer)
      volume => protected101 (integer)
      issue => protected'' (0 chars)
      startpage => protected'851' (3 chars)
      otherpage => protected'866' (3 chars)
      categories => protected'environmental management; river restoration; monitoring; objectives; indicat
         ors; Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)' (120 chars)
      description => protected'Environmental monitoring covers many different management domains. They rang
         e from biodiversity conservation to water protection, natural hazard prevent
         ion, 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 t
         his paper, we present a formal approach based on Multi-Criteria Decision Ana
         lysis (MCDA), namely relevancy analysis, to prioritize management objectives
         . We demonstrate its use for a river restoration monitoring program in Switz
         erland comprising 35 physical and biological objectives. The relevancy of an
          objective is based on two main components, the general importance of the ob
         jective, 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). T
         he impact range is used to understand which management objectives are more i
         mportant to monitor for different river restoration measures (i.e. sub-selec
         tion of the objectives specifically for the restoration measure). The genera
         l 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 ide
         ntified from a questionnaire involving 15 Swiss river restoration profession
         als. Hereby, we assumed that the impact range increases as the anticipated i
         mpact of the restoration measure on a specific management objective increase
         s, and as the uncertainty to anticipate this impact increases. For simplicit
         y, we applied the approach only to one restoration measure, namely river wid
         ening. Six management objectives scored high in relevancy in terms of both i
         mpact range and general ...' (2826 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'1470-160X' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.042' (29 chars)
      uid => protected18410 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected18410 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected18410 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)
   2 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=14264, pid=124)
      originalId => protected14264 (integer)
      authors => protected'Marttunen, M.; Belton, V.; Lienert, J.' (53 chars)
      title => protected'Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysi
         s of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analys
         is' (154 chars)
      journal => protected'European Journal of Operational Research' (40 chars)
      year => protected2018 (integer)
      volume => protected265 (integer)
      issue => protected'1' (1 chars)
      startpage => protected'178' (3 chars)
      otherpage => protected'194' (3 chars)
      categories => protected'behavioural OR; decision analysis; decision processes; multiple criteria ana
         lysis; OR in environment and climate change' (119 chars)
      description => protected'Procedural and behavioural biases have received little attention in recent M
         ulti-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 objec
         tives 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 elicitat
         ion procedures in 61 environmental and energy MCDA cases. Relationships betw
         een the structural characteristics of the objectives hierarchy and assigned 
         objectives’ weights were analysed with statistical tests. Our main researc
         h questions were: (i) How does hierarchy size and structure affect the objec
         tives’ weights? (ii) How are weights distributed across economic, social a
         nd 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 distribut
         ions. For example, hierarchical weighting seems to be sensitive to the asymm
         etry 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 h
         ighlight issues deserving more attention when developing objectives hierarch
         ies and eliciting weights. The research demonstrates the potential to use me
         ta-analysis, which has not previously been used in this way in the MCDA fiel
         d, to learn from a collection of applications.' (1718 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'0377-2217' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.038' (26 chars)
      uid => protected14264 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected14264 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected14264 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)
   3 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=15205, pid=124)
      originalId => protected15205 (integer)
      authors => protected'Marttunen, M.; Lienert, J.; Belton, V.' (53 chars)
      title => protected'Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: a lit
         erature review of method combinations' (113 chars)
      journal => protected'European Journal of Operational Research' (40 chars)
      year => protected2017 (integer)
      volume => protected263 (integer)
      issue => protected'1' (1 chars)
      startpage => protected'1' (1 chars)
      otherpage => protected'17' (2 chars)
      categories => protected'problem structuring; multiple criteria decision analysis; multi-methodoly; m
         ulti-stakeholder decision-making' (108 chars)
      description => protected'Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has attract
         ed increasing attention over the past 20 years from both a conceptual and a 
         practical perspective. This is reflected in a significant growth in the numb
         er of published applications which use a formal approach to problem structur
         ing 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 Option
         s Design and Analysis (SODA) and other methods that focus on a particular as
         pect. We carried out a literature review that covers eight PSMs (Cognitive a
         nd Causal Maps, DPSIR, Scenario Planning, SSM, Stakeholder Analysis, Strateg
         ic Choice Approach, SODA and SWOT) and seven MCDA methods (AHP, ANP, ELECTRE
         , MAUT, MAVT, PROMETHEE and TOPSIS). We first identified and analysed 333 ar
         ticles published during 2000-2015, then selected 68 articles covering all PS
         M-MCDA combinations, which were studied in detail to understand the associat
         ed processes, benefits and challenges. The three PSMs most commonly combined
          with MCDA are SWOT, Scenario Planning and DPSIR. AHP was by far the most co
         mmonly applied MCDA method. Combining PSMs with MCDA produces a richer view 
         of the decision situation and enables more effective support for different p
         hases of the decision-making process. Some limitations and challenges in com
         bining PSMs and MCDA are also identified, most importantly relating to build
         ing a value tree and assigning criteria weights.' (1568 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'0377-2217' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041' (26 chars)
      uid => protected15205 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected15205 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected15205 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)