MCDA can be realized in many ways

20.0

4.23A. Decision makers and experts use MCDA on their own, no stakeholders involved

B. Stakeholders opinions are included in MCDA e.g. by using questionnaire

C. Stakeholders are actively involved in all phases of MCDA

Stakeholders’ involvement

A

B

C

Sta

keho

lder

s’ le

arni

ng,

com

mun

icat

ion,

and

app

rova

l

Low High

Low

High

Mika Marttunen SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute

Timo Karjalainen University of Oulu

Raimo P. Hämäläinen Aalto University, Systems Analysis Laboratory

GDN 2012 | An International Meeting on Group Decision and NegotiationRecife, Brazil, 20 - 24 May, 2012

Engaging stakeholders in environmental planning projects by using MCDA approach in Finland

State-of-the-art in MCDA

MCDA applications in environmental planning are diverse and rapidly increasing.• Water resources, fisheries and forestry management, energy and

climate policies, traffic, spatial/GIS etc…

MCDA is used to activate and involve stakeholder.

How to design and implement MCDA processes which are understandable, meaningful and effective from participants’ points of views?

20.0

4.23

Charateristics of good participation processes (e.g. Beierle 2002, French et al. 2005)

• Involves stakeholders early

• Fair and open

• Incorporates public values and knowledge into decision making

• Enhances learning

• Builds trust between participants

• Cost-effective

Stages of Stakeholder Involvement – the MCDA ladder Role of stakeholders? How to gather preference information ?

20.0

4.23

Tan

eli D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, S

YK

E

4

Experts are using MCDA on their own, stakeholders are not involved.

Postal questionnaires are used to collect preference information.

Incr

ease

in

stak

ehol

der

s’s

role

an

d in

tera

ctio

n

Decision conferences or workshops are used to collect preference information from stakeholders .

Personal and interactive computer aided interviews

Personal interviews and group discussions (DAI approach)

Interactive computer supported MCDA process based on personal interviews (Marttunen and Hämäläinen 1995).

Helps participants to develop a well-informed opinion about the alternatives.

Easy to describe differences in stakeholders’ opinions. Useful to identify groups having similar perspectives

Our experience: 10 real environmental projects. Altogether 250 people personally interviewed, 10-30 people in a project.

Softaware used: Web-HIPRE, Excel spreadsheets and a customized MCDA tool.

The Decision Analysis Interview (DAI) approach20.0

4.23

5

FRAMING, ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

Impact matrix Preliminary estimates for the importances of the impacts

Value tree

STAKEHOLDERS’ OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVES

Identifying and structuring objectives and developing

alternatives

ALTERNATIVES’ IMPACTS

Defining attributes, scales and performance

scores

STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS

Studying workbook material and answering

the questionnaire

INTERACTIVE USE OF MCDA SOFTWARE

SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSDifferent perspectives and value profilesIssues of agreement and disagreement

Attributes’ weights, arguments and

consistency-checking

Analysis of the results

Modifications to the value tree and to the performance

scores

Discussion of the responses to the

questionnaire

Decision analysis interview approach

20.0

4.23

Name of the proejct

Evaluation of the

alternatives

Identification of information

gaps and uncertainties

Describing stakeholders’ preferences

Partici-pants’

learning

Joint solution finding

WATER COURSE REGULATION /HYDRO POWER

Oulujärvi x x

Päijänne x x x x

Pirkanmaa x x x x

Koitere x x x x

Plavinas x

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT

Kokemäenjoki x x x

Rovaniemi x x x x

RESTORATION PROJECTS

Mustionjoki x x x x x

Iijoki x x x x x

Primary aims in some of SYKE’s MCDA projects

The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA projects

Interaction level of MCDA process

Low

Very high

Integration level of MCDA into the decision

process

Low

Very high

Key stakeholders are actively involved in the different phases of the

analysis, and the weight elicitation and analysis of

the results are done interactively with computer

supported tool.

Experts dominate.Stakeholders are not actively involved into

the process.

The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA projects

Interaction level of MCDA process

Low

Very high

Integration level of MCDA into the decision

process

Low

Very highMCDA is tightly linked into

the planning process. MCDA provides a roadmap and evaluation framework

for the project.

MCDA is a separate exercise which do not have impact on decision making.

Integration of MCDA and interaction levels in the projects

Interaction level of the MCDA process

Low

Very high

Integration level of MCDA into the decision

process Oulujärvi (1992)

Ylä-Lappi (2008)

Koitere (2005)

Päijänne (1998)

Pirkanmaa (2002)

Kokemäenjoki (1993)

Low

Very high

Iijoki (2010)

Mäntsälä (2007)

Keski-Suomi (2011)

Mustionjoki (2010)

Plavinas (2006)Rovaniemi (2012)

Pielinen (2011)

Mustionjoki River restoration project

Enhancement of endangered pearl mussel and salmon stock

A heavily modified and regulated river

20.0

4.23

Multiple stakeholder events related to MCDA

20.0

4.23

The benefits of DAI approach in group decision making = improved collaborative

planning

13

20.0

4.23

Tan

eli D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, S

YK

E

14

Building a commonly accepted evaluation framework has positive systemic impacts.

• Participants’ objectives form the basis for the whole evaluation

Supports shifting discussion towards ”opening up” mode.

• What are the alternatives? What kind of impacts have they ? What kind of uncertanties relate to them?

DAI aims at individual and social learning.• Understanding the real magnitude of impacts• How do people consider the alternatives and their impacts ?• What are the issues of agreement and disagreement?

Shifts participant’s mental model into co-operative mode

20.0

4.23

Tan

eli D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, S

YK

E

15

Supports the synthesis of information.

Helps people carefully consider the alternatives’ impacts as well as their own preferences.

Interactiveness enables immediate feedback (”learning by analysing”).

Easy to see differences in people’s perspectives. .

Improves understanding

20.0

4.23

Tan

eli D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, S

YK

E

16

Stakeholders are actively involved in the problem framing and structuring phases.

Stakeholder knowledge invited and efficiently utilized.

Evaluation of alternatives is systematic and open. Participants can revise expert evaluations of

impacts. Every participant has a ” voice” which is

documented.

Improves fairness and transparency

20.0

4.23

Tan

eli D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, S

YK

E

17

During the process people learn to better understand other people’s objectives.

Trust towards the project and authorities responsible for it improves.

Several meetings => people get familiar to each other => feeling of togetherness may develop.

Risk that MCDA will be considered as a black box method decreases.

Enhances trust

20.0

4.23

Tan

eli D

uuna

ri-T

yönt

ekijä

inen

, S

YK

E

18

Brings structure, systemacy and rigourness to process.

New approach for most participants => people are eager to participate.

People have possibility to analyse their opinions and get their opinions documented.

Strong support and positive feedback from the participants.

Sustains interest of participants on the

process

20.0

4.23

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DECISION SITUATION

DAI APPROACH

PARTICIPATION AND LEARNING

Opportunities for joint-gains improvesWillingness to compromise increases

Commitment to the outcome

MCDA in group decision making

Findings from the DAI approach DAI focuses on learning and understanding better different perspectives.

• No need to find agreement on the weights of the criteria

The choice of the stakeholders is crucial. Participants’ opinions should cover a wide range opinions

The process is relatively laborious.• Common problem structuring and impact assessment

Flexibility needed from the MCDA team.• Process is iterative and evolutionary

Weight elicitation process is cognitively demanding.• Interactive approach helps and diminishes mistakes

20.0

4.23

Conclusions

High quality decisions are based on good understanding what is important (values) and what are the impacts of the alternatives (facts).

The quality of the outcome and the acceptability of the planning process depends on how fair and open people consider it.

MCDA has a great potential in improving the quality of group decision making processes.• Integrated and interactive approach!

20.0

4.23

20.0

4.23

THANK YOU!