Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Preference Elicitation

  • Conference paper
Environmental Security in Harbors and Coastal Areas

Part of the book series: NATO Security through Science Series ((NASTC))

Abstract

Arguments why stakeholder preferences cannot be modeled as utilities, multicriteria or otherwise, are reviewed. An approach to stakeholder preferences based on well known models for consumer preference in market research is proposed. Simple paired comparisons is used to represent group preferences on an affine unique scale, and regression is used to “explain” these preferences in terms of scores on a number of criteria. Using the rich body of standard regression techniques, we can analyse degree of fit, and we can deal with dependence in the “criteria”. The tasks in stakeholder preference modeling can be apportioned between analysts, experts and stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K.J. (1963) “Social choice and individual values” 2nd edition, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arrow, K.J. and Raynaud, J. (1986) “Social choice and Multicriterion Decision Making”, MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bradley, R. (1953) “Some statistical methods in taste testing and quality evaluation” Biometrica, vol. 9, 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bradley, R. and Terry, M. (1952) “Rank analysis of incomplete block designs” Biometrica, vol. 39, 324–345.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cooke, R.M. (1991) Experts in Uncertainty Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. David, H.A. (1957) The Method of Paired comparisons, Charles griffin, London, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  7. French, S. (1988) Decision Theory; an Introduction to the Mathematics of rationality Ellis Horwood, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kind, P. (1996) “Deriving cardinal scales from ordinal preference data: the analysis of time trade-off data using pairwise judgement models”, Paper presented to HESG, Brunei University.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Koop, G. and Poirier, D.J. (1994) “Rank-ordered logit models: an empirical analysis of Ontario voter preferences”. Journal of Applied Econometrics 9, 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Linkov, I., Sahay, S. Kiker, G. Bridges, T. Belluck, D. and Meyer, A. (2005) “Multi-criteria decision analysis; comprehensive decision analysis tool for risk management of contaminated sediments.”

    Google Scholar 

  11. McCabe, C. Brazier, J. Gilks, P. Tauchiya, A. Roberts, J. O’Hagan, A. and Stevens, K. (2004) “Estimating population cardinal health state valuation models from ordinal (rank) health state preference data” Sheffield Health Economics Group, Discussion Paper Series, Ref. 04/2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. McFadden, D. (1974) “Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior” in Zarembka, P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics, New York Academic Press, USA, 105–142.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mosteller, F. (1952) “Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: the least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations” Psychometrica, vol. 16, no. 1 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. May, K.D. (1952) ‘A set of necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decisions’ Econometrica 20, 680–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Salomon, J.A. (2004) “The use of ordinal ranks in health state valuations” IHEA Conference, USA, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Savage, L.J. (1972) Foundations of Statistics 2nd edition, Dover, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Thurstone, L. (1927) “A law of comparative judgment” Pschyl. Rev. vol. 34, 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Torgerson, W. (1958) Theory and Methods of Scaling, Wiley, New York, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Torrance, G.W., Feeny, D.H., Furlong, W.J. Barr, R.D. Xhang, Y., and Wang, Q. (1996) “A multi-attribute utility functijon for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Mark 2.” Medical Care 34 (7) 702–722.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Delft Institute for Applied Mathematics Delft University of Technology, Resources for the Future, U.S.A.

    R. M. Cooke

Authors
  1. R. M. Cooke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. INTERTOX, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts and Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

    Igor Linkov

  2. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A.

    Gregory A. Kiker

  3. ENVIRON International Corporation, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.

    Richard J. Wenning

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cooke, R.M. (2007). Stakeholder Preference Elicitation. In: Linkov, I., Kiker, G.A., Wenning, R.J. (eds) Environmental Security in Harbors and Coastal Areas. NATO Security through Science Series. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5802-8_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation