Abstract
A panel of 64 experts ranked 30 scenarios of human activities according to their impacts on coastal ecosystems. Experts were asked to rank the five scenarios posing the greatest threats and the five scenarios posing the least threats. The goal of this study was to find weights for criteria that adequately model these stakeholders’ preferences and can be used to predict the scores of other scenarios. Probabilistic inversion (PI) techniques were used to quantify a model of ecosystem vulnerability based on five criteria. Distinctive features of this approach are:
-
1.
A model of the stakeholder population as a joint distribution over the criteria weights is obtained. This distribution is found by minimizing relative information with respect to a noninformative starting distribution, but makes no further assumptions about the interactions between the weights for different criteria. Criteria distributions with dependence emerge from the fitting procedure.
-
2.
The multicriteria preference model can be empirically validated with expert preferences not used in fitting the model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson, S.P., de Palma, A., and Thissen, J-F., 1996. Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Bradley, R., 1953. Some statistical methods in taste testing and quality evaluation. Biometrika 9:22–38.
Bradley, R., and Terry, M., 1952. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. Biometrika 39:324–345.
Cooke, R. M., and Misiewicz, J., 2007. Discrete choice with probabilistic inversion: application to energy policy choice and wiring failure. Presented at Mathematical Methods in Reliability, July.
Covich, A. P., Austen, M. C., Barlocher, F., Chauvet, E., Cardinale, B. J., Biles, C. L., Inchausti, P., Dangles, O., Solan, M., Gessner, M. O., Statzner, B., and Moss, B., 2004. The role of biodiversity in the functioning of freshwater and marine benthic ecosystems. Bioscience 54:767–775.
Csiszar, I., 1975. I-divergence geometry of probability distributions and minimization problems. Annals of Probability 3:146–158.
Deming, W. E., and Stephan, F. F., 1944. On a least squares adjustment to sample frequency tables when the expected marginal totals are known. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 40(11):427–444.
Du, C., Kurowicka, D., and Cooke, R. M., 2006. Techniques for generic probabilistic inversion. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 50:1164–1187.
Linkov, I., Kiker, G. A., and Wenning, R. J. (Eds.) 2007. Environmental Security in Harbors and Coastal Areas. Springer, Dordrecht.
French, S., 1988. Decision Theory; An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
Halpern, B. S., Selkoe, K. A., Micheli, F., and Cappel, C. V. 2007. Evaluating and ranking global and regional threats to marine ecosystems. Conservation Biology 21:1301–1315.
Ireland, C. T., and Kullback, S., 1968. Contingency tables with given marginals. Biometrika 55:179–188.
Kraan, B. C. P. and Cooke, R. M. 2000. Processing expert judgments in accident consequence modeling. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 90(3):311–315.
Kraan, B.C.P and Cooke, R. M., 2000. Uncertainty in compartmental models for hazardous materials — a case study. Journal of Hazardous Materials 71:253–268.
Kraan, B.C.P., and Bedford. T. J. 2005. Probabilistic inversion of expert judgments in the quantification of model uncertainty. Management Science 51(6):995–1006.
Kraan, B. C. P., 2002. Probabilistic Inversion in Uncertainty Analysis and Related Topics. Ph.D. dissertation, TU Delft, Dept. Mathematics.
Kruithof, J., 1937. Telefoonverkeersrekening. De Ingenieur 52(8):E15–E25.
Kullback, S., 1959. Information Theory and Statistics. Wiley, New York.
Kullback, S., 1968. Probability densities with given marginals. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 39(4): 1236–1243.
Kullback, S., 1971. Marginal homogeneity of multidimensional contingency tables. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 42(2):594–606.
Kurowicka, D., and Cooke, R. M., 2006. Uncertainty Analysis with High Dimensional Dependence Modelling. Wiley, New York.
Linkov, I., Sahay, S., Kiker, G., Bridges, T., Belluck, D., and Meyer, A., 2006. Multicriteria decision analysis; comprehensive decision analysis tool for risk management of contaminated sediments. Risk Analysis 26(l):61–78.
Luce, R. D., and Suppes, P., 1965. Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 3, eds. Luce, R. D., Bush, R., and Calanter, E. Wiley, New York.
Luce, R. D., 1959. Individual Choice Behavior; A Theoretical Analysis. Wiley, New York.
M.E.A. (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis Report. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Matus, F., 2007. On iterated averages of I-projections, Statistiek und Informatik, Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.
McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logic analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. Zarembka, P., 105–142. New York Academic Press, New York.
Siikamäki, J., and Layton, D. F., 2007. Discrete choice survey experiments: a comparison using flexible methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53:127–139.
Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., and Reed, M. S., 2006. Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology and Society 11(2):39.
Thurstone, L., 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 34:273–286.
Torgerson, W., 1958. Theory and Methods of Scaling. Wiley, New York.
Train, K. E., 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Train, K. E., 1998. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 74: 230–239.
Vomlel, J., 1999. Methods of Probabilistic Knowledge Integration. Ph.D. thesis, Czech Technical University, Faculty of Electrical Engineering.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this paper
Cite this paper
Neslo, R., Micheli, F., Kappel, C.V., Selkoe, K.A., Halpern, B.S., Cooke, R.M. (2008). Modeling Stakeholder Preferences with Probabilistic Inversion. In: Linkov, I., Ferguson, E., Magar, V.S. (eds) Real-Time and Deliberative Decision Making. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9026-4_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9026-4_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9025-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9026-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)