Deliberation, Representation, Equity

"What can we learn about the development of public interaction in e-democracy from a drama delivered by mobile headphones to an audience standing around a shopping center in a Stockholm suburb? In democratic societies there is widespread acknowledgment of the need to incorporate citizens’ input in decision-making processes in more or less structured ways. But participatory decision making is balancing on the borders of inclusion, structure, precision and accuracy. To simply enable more participation will not yield enhanced democracy, and there is a clear need for more elaborated elicitation and decision analytical tools. This rigorous and thought-provoking volume draws on a stimulating variety of international case studies, from flood risk management in the Red River Delta of Vietnam, to the consideration of alternatives to gold mining in Roșia Montană in Transylvania, to the application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the impact of e-learning opportunities at Uganda's Makerere University. Editors Love Ekenberg (senior research scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis [IIASA], Laxenburg, professor of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University), Karin Hansson (artist and research fellow, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University), Mats Danielson (vice president and professor of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, affiliate researcher, IIASA) and Göran Cars (professor of Societal Planning and Environment, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm) draw innovative collaborations between mathematics, social science, and the arts. They develop new problem formulations and solutions, with the aim of carrying decisions from agenda setting and problem awareness through to feasible courses of action by setting objectives, alternative generation, consequence assessments, and trade-off clarifications. As a result, this book is important new reading for decision makers in government, public administration and urban planning, as well as students and researchers in the fields of participatory democracy, urban planning, social policy, communication design, participatory art, decision theory, risk analysis and computer and systems sciences.

Deliberation, Representation, Equity: Research Approaches, Tools and Algorithms for Participatory Processes

In democratic societies there is widespread acknowledgment of the need to incorporate citizens’ input in decision-making processes in more or less structured ways. But participatory decision making is balancing on the borders of inclusion, structure, precision and accuracy. To simply enable more participation will not yield enhanced democracy, and there is a clear need for more elaborated elicitation and decision analytical tools. This rigorous and thought-provoking volume draws on a stimulating variety of international case studies, from flood risk management in the Red River Delta of Vietnam, to the consideration of alternatives to gold mining in Roșia Montană in Transylvania, to the application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the impact of e-learning opportunities at Uganda's Makerere University. This book is important new reading for decision makers in government, public administration and urban planning, as well as students and researchers in the fields of participatory democracy, urban planning, social policy, communication design, participatory art, decision theory, risk analysis and computer and systems sciences

Logistic regression for criteria weight elicitation in PROMETHEE-based ranking methods

For a PROMETHEE II method used to rank concurrent alternatives both preference functions and weights are required, and if the weights are unknown, they can be elicited by leveraging present or past partial rankings. If the known partial ranking is incorrect, the eliciting methods are ineffective. In this paper a logistic regression method for weight elicitation is proposed to tackle this scenario. An experiment is carried out to compare the logistic regression method performance against a state-of-the-art linear weight elicitation method, proving the validity of the proposed methodology

The validity of weighted scoring evaluation techniques applied to design: studies in the appraisal of heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems for office buildings.

The common weighted scoring evaluation technique is presented by the design methods literature and by many practical guides as being an appropriate method for appraising different design solutions, however there are few critical assessments of the assumptions inherent in the method and no serious attempts to evaluate the validity of the technique as applied in a design context. This thesis presents a series of empirical studies and theoretical reviews which examine, in a logical sequence, aspects of the validity of weighted scoring techniques in the context of early stage heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system design for office buildings. The nature of the HVAC design process is investigated, and in parallel with this a theoretical critique of the weighted scoring method as described in the design methods literature is conducted. It is found that the common approach to weighted scoring is invalid, raising concern over the indiscriminate use of such decision aids. However, a theoretically correct interpretation known as Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT) is possible. It is also found that the method is not applicable to the selection of HVAC systems in general, but may be considered reasonably valid in more restricted tasks such as air conditioning system selection for a specific area in a building. While the MAVT models developed are judged to be reasonably valid, it is argued that their usefulness is debatable. If all the information on which to base the decision is available and the decision maker is reasonably skilled then MAVT will only improve decision making at the margin where the penalty for a wrong decision is less significant

A robustness study of state-of-the-art surrogate weights for MCDM

A vast number of methods for solving multi-criteria decision problems have been suggested for assessing criteria weights requiring more exact input data than users normally are able to provide. In particular, the selection of adequate criteria weights is difficult and in order to be realistic, other methods must be introduced. One class of such methods is to introduce so called surrogate weights, where numerical weights are assigned to each criterion based on a cardinal or ordinal rank ordering, assumed to represent the information extracted from the user. One essential problem is the robustness of such methods. In this article, we compare state-of-the-art methods based on surrogate weights from the literature and, utilizing a simulation approach, discuss underlying assumptions and robustness properties. This results in a quantitative measurement of these weighting methods and a methodology applicable also to forthcoming methods

Imprecise swing weighting for multi-attribute utility elicitation based on partial preferences.

We describe a novel approach to multi-attribute utility elicitation which is both general enough to cover a wide range of problems, whilst at the same time simple enough to admit reasonably straightforward calculations. We allow both utilities and probabilities to be only partially specified, through bounding. We still assume marginal utilities to be precise. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions under which our elicitation procedure is consistent. As a special case, we obtain an imprecise generalization of the well known swing weighting method for eliciting multi-attribute utility functions. An example from ecological risk assessment demonstrates our method

Deliberation, Representation, Equity

"What can we learn about the development of public interaction in e-democracy from a drama delivered by mobile headphones to an audience standing around a shopping center in a Stockholm suburb? In democratic societies there is widespread acknowledgment of the need to incorporate citizens’ input in decision-making processes in more or less structured ways. But participatory decision making is balancing on the borders of inclusion, structure, precision and accuracy. To simply enable more participation will not yield enhanced democracy, and there is a clear need for more elaborated elicitation and decision analytical tools. This rigorous and thought-provoking volume draws on a stimulating variety of international case studies, from flood risk management in the Red River Delta of Vietnam, to the consideration of alternatives to gold mining in Roșia Montană in Transylvania, to the application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the impact of e-learning opportunities at Uganda's Makerere University. Editors Love Ekenberg (senior research scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis [IIASA], Laxenburg, professor of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University), Karin Hansson (artist and research fellow, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University), Mats Danielson (vice president and professor of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, affiliate researcher, IIASA) and Göran Cars (professor of Societal Planning and Environment, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm) draw innovative collaborations between mathematics, social science, and the arts. They develop new problem formulations and solutions, with the aim of carrying decisions from agenda setting and problem awareness through to feasible courses of action by setting objectives, alternative generation, consequence assessments, and trade-off clarifications. As a result, this book is important new reading for decision makers in government, public administration and urban planning, as well as students and researchers in the fields of participatory democracy, urban planning, social policy, communication design, participatory art, decision theory, risk analysis and computer and systems sciences.

Robustness of Multiple Objective Decision Analysis Preference Functions

This research investigated value and utility functions in multiobjective decision analysis to examine the relationship between them in a military decision making context. The impact of these differences was examined to improve implementation efficiency. The robustness of the decision model was examined with respect to the preference functions to reduce the time burden imposed on the decision maker. Data for decision making in a military context supports the distinction between value and utility functions. Relationships between value and utility functions and risk attitudes were found to be complex. Elicitation error was significantly smaller than the difference between value and utility functions. Risk attitudes were generally neither constant across the domain of the evaluation measure nor consistent between evaluation measures. An improved measure of differences between preference functions, the weighted root means square, is introduced and a goodness of fit criterion established. An improved measure of risk attitudes employing utility functions is developed. Response Surface Methodology was applied to improve the efficiency of decision analysis utility model applications through establishing the robustness of decision models to the preference functions. An algorithm was developed and employs this information to provide a hybrid value-utility model that offers increased elicitation efficiency

Imprecise swing weighting for multi-attribute utility elicitation based on partial preferences

We describe a novel approach to multi-attribute utility elicitation which is both general enough to cover a wide range of problems, whilst at the same time simple enough to admit reasonably straightforward calculations. We allow both utilities and probabilities to be only partially specified, through bounding. We still assume marginal utilities to be precise. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions under which our elicitation procedure is consistent. As a special case, we obtain an imprecise generalization of the well known swing weighting method for eliciting multi-attribute utility functions. An example from ecological risk assessment demonstrates our method

Behavioral challenges in policy analysis with conflicting objectives

Public policy problems are rife with conflicting objectives: efficiency versus fairness, technical criteria versus political goals, costs versus multiple benefits. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis provides robust methodologies to support policy makers in making tough choices and in designing better policy options when considering these conflicting objectives. However, important behavioral challenges exist in developing these models: the use of expert judgments, whenever evidence is not available; the elicitation of preferences and priorities from policy makers and communities; and the effective management of group decision processes. The extensive developments in behavioral decision research, social psychology, facilitated decision modeling, and incomplete preference models shed light on how decision analysts should address these issues, so we can provide better decision support and develop high quality decision models. In this tutorial I discuss the main findings of these extensive, but rather fragmented, literatures providing a coherent and practical framework for managing behavioral issues, minimizing behavioral biases, and optimizing the quality of human judgments in policy analysis models with conflicting objectives. I illustrate these guidelines with policy analysis interventions that we have conducted over the last decade for several organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Malaria Consortium/USAID, the UK National Audit Office, among others