Advancing Alternative Analysis: Integration of Decision Science.

Decision analysis-a systematic approach to solving complex problems-offers tools and frameworks to support decision making that are increasingly being applied to environmental challenges. Alternatives analysis is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, compare, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals.Assess whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics.A workshop was convened that included representatives from government, academia, business, and civil society and included experts in toxicology, decision science, alternatives assessment, engineering, and law and policy. Participants were divided into two groups and prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups' findings.We conclude the further incorporation of decision science into alternatives analysis would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients, and would also advance the science of decision analysis.We advance four recommendations: (1) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; (2) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; (3) supporting transdisciplinary research; and (4) supporting education and outreach efforts

Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment

Sustainability assessments require the management of a wide variety of information types, parameters and uncertainties. Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been regarded as a suitable set of methods to perform sustainability evaluations as a result of its flexibility and the possibility of facilitating the dialogue between stakeholders, analysts and scientists. However, it has been reported that researchers do not usually properly define the reasons for choosing a certain MCDA method instead of another. Familiarity and affinity with a certain approach seem to be the drivers for the choice of a certain procedure. This review paper presents the performance of five MCDA methods (i.e. MAUT, AHP, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE and DRSA) in respect to ten crucial criteria that sustainability assessments tools should satisfy, among which are a life cycle perspective, thresholds and uncertainty management, software support and ease of use. The review shows that MAUT and AHP are fairly simple to understand and have good software support, but they are cognitively demanding for the decision makers, and can only embrace a weak sustainability perspective as trade-offs are the norm. Mixed information and uncertainty can be managed by all the methods, while robust results can only be obtained with MAUT. ELECTRE, PROMETHEE and DRSA are non-compensatory approaches which consent to use a strong sustainability concept, accept a variety of thresholds, but suffer from rank reversal. DRSA is less demanding in terms of preference elicitation, is very easy to understand and provides a straightforward set of decision rules expressed in the form of elementary “if … then …” conditions. Dedicated software is available for all the approaches with a medium to wide range of results capability representation. DRSA emerges as the easiest method, followed by AHP, PROMETHEE and MAUT, while ELECTRE is regarded as fairly difficult. Overall, the analysis has shown that most of the requirements are satisfied by the MCDA methods (although to different extents) with the exclusion of management of mixed data types and adoption of life cycle perspective which are covered by all the considered approaches

WHY FUZZY ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH FOR TRANSPORT PROBLEMS?

The evaluation of transport projects has become increasingly complex. Different aspects have to be taken into account and the consequences of the problems are usually far reaching and the different policy alternatives are numerous and difficult to predict. Several pressure or action groups have also emerged causing an even more complex decision making process. The use of multi criteria analysis for the evaluation of transport projects has increased due to this increasing complexity of the problem situation. At the same time, the importance of stakeholders within this evaluation process should have been recognized. Researches on transport projects are generally carried out to provide information to policymakers that have to operate within restrictive parameters (political, economical, social, etc…). Researchers should therefore take greater account of the different priorities of stakeholders such as policymakers, private enterprises and households. These stakeholders should be incorporated explicitly in the evaluation process. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is one of the Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making methods. It can be applied in a very broad range of applications of decision problems. Logistics, urban planning, public politics, marketing, finance, education, economics are a part of this wide application area. In transport subjects it can be used for the evaluation of transport policy measures or decision making problems. Due to its wide range application area, it has been an exciting research subject for many different field researchers. The aim of this paper is to introduce AHP method and to offer how to benefit it for the preference of urban planners in transport problems. This paper is composed of two main parts. First part consists of the literature survey regarding with the AHP and its application areas. The advantage of methods had been mentioned. Second part focuses on a sample application of AHP technique. The study uses AHP technique to determine the selection criteria in the transhipment port selection decision-making process. Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process, Multi criteria analysis, Transshipment port selection.

GIS-based multicriteria analysis as decision support in flood risk management

In this report we develop a GIS-based multicriteria flood risk assessment and mapping approach. This approach has the ability a) to consider also flood risks which are not measured in monetary terms, b) to show the spatial distribution of these multiple risks and c) to deal with uncertainties in criteria values and to show their influence on the overall assessment. It can furthermore be used to show the spatial distribution of the effects of risk reduction measures. The approach is tested for a pilot study at the River Mulde in Saxony, Germany. Therefore, a GISdataset of economic as well as social and environmental risk criteria is built up. Two multicriteria decision rules, a disjunctive approach and an additive weighting approach are used to come to an overall assessment and mapping of flood risk in the area. Both the risk calculation and mapping of single criteria as well as the multicriteria analysis are supported by a software tool (FloodCalc) which was developed for this task. --